Robert C. Murphy

In Yoswick v. State, the defendant pleaded guilty to attempted first degree murder and kidnapping pursuant to a plea agreement and later sought post-conviction relief, claiming that the court and his counsel failed to advise him about the parole consequences of his life sentence with a portion suspended, rendering his plea involuntary. The court decided that the trial court's failure to inform the defendant of parole ramifications did not invalidate the guilty plea because such consequences are collateral rather than direct. The court further held that the defendant did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel under the Hill v. Lockhart standard because he failed to show prejudice from any misinformation by counsel regarding parole eligibility.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over whether Anne Arundel County was obligated to remit one-seventh of its state tobacco tax revenue allocations to the City of Annapolis under a 1945 public local law (Ch. 1041), after the County adopted a home rule charter in 1964 and repealed the law via Bill No. 85 in 1965. The City filed for a writ of mandamus seeking over $9 million in unremitted revenues and interest from 1970 to 1992, but the circuit court dismissed the complaint on laches grounds despite the County not raising that defense. On appeal, the court examined the continuing validity of the 1945 law under Article XI-A home rule powers, the County's authority to repeal it and redirect funds to a general fund, and procedural questions including whether laches could be applied sua sponte in a mandamus action against a governmental entity asserting a tax revenue claim.

taxesprocedure

The case concerned a 1988 marital settlement agreement incorporated into the Shapiros' divorce decree, under which Mr. Shapiro paid Ms. Shapiro alimony that the agreement stated could be modified by a court only if he became disabled. After the divorce, Mr. Shapiro sought court modification of the alimony despite not being disabled; the circuit court ruled the payments modifiable, relying on prior precedent. The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed, holding that the agreement's language satisfied the exception in Maryland Code, Family Law Article § 8-103(c)(2) by specifically stating that alimony provisions were not subject to court modification except under the listed condition. The court reasoned that the statute permits parties to limit modifiability through clear contractual terms, and the disability-only clause was a valid, enforceable restriction rather than an invalid partial waiver.

family law

This case involved John Flansburg, who pled guilty to a sex offense, received a suspended sentence with probation, and later had his probation revoked after new convictions, resulting in reimposition of the suspended portion of his sentence. Flansburg twice requested his public defender file a motion under Maryland Rule 4-345(b) to modify the reimposed sentence, but counsel failed to do so, leading Flansburg to petition for post-conviction relief on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held that Flansburg had a right to effective assistance of counsel for the modification motion and that his claim was cognizable under the Maryland Post Conviction Procedure Act. The decision rested on Maryland statutory law, including the Public Defender Act, and rules extending the right to counsel in probation revocation proceedings to the period when the court could entertain a modification motion, without relying on federal constitutional protections.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved whether a patient's claim that a doctor committed assault and battery during a hernia examination was subject to Maryland's Health Care Malpractice Claims Act, which requires filing with the Health Claims Arbitration Office and a certificate of merit from a qualified expert. The Court of Appeals held that the claim was covered by the Act because it alleged an injury occurring during the provision of medical services by a health care provider. Therefore, the circuit court properly dismissed the action after the HCAO had dismissed the related malpractice claim for failure to file the required certificate, reversing the intermediate appellate court's decision that such intentional tort claims were exempt from the Act.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

This case involved Carroll County's attempt to use eminent domain to condemn a 750-square-foot strip of privately owned land used as a pedestrian path, in order to extend a public road and provide access to adjacent property owned by the Greens for their planned residential development. The circuit court upheld the condemnation as serving a public use and being necessary, but the Court of Special Appeals reversed, finding that the action primarily benefited private interests rather than a public purpose. The Court of Appeals reviewed the matter on certiorari, examining whether the taking satisfied the public-use requirement under the Maryland Constitution and statutory necessity standards. The court concluded that the condemnation was not for a public use because the County's decision was made solely to benefit the Greens' private development, with no genuine public objectives or evidence of necessity presented in the record.

property