124 Md. App. 226 - Skok v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If a defendant in a criminal case were able, with impunity, to ignore the time limits set forth in Rule 4 — 242(f) and simply file a motion for a new trial whenever it suited his or her convenience, convictions based orn guilty pleas or pleas of nolo contendere would be forever in legal limbo and the public policy favoring finality of judgments would be thwarted. We hold that a defendant who files a motion for new trial to set aside a guilty plea or a nolo contendere plea must allege facts showing that he/she has acted with ordinary diligence and good faith. Here, appellant does not allege in his motion[ ] that he was ever ignorant of the fact that the court below had failed to comply with Rule 4-242. Appellant gives no hint in his motion as to why he waited over three years after the judgment was final before filing a new trial motion, nor does he set forth any fact showing that he acted in good faith or with due diligence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 125 Md. App. 428 - State v. Rodriguez

2. “As a grounds for revising an enrolled judgment, irregularity, as well as fraud and mistake, has a very narrow scope. See Autobahn [v. Mayor of Balt], 321 Md. [558,] 562, 583 A.2d 731 [ (1991) ]. In Weitz [v. MacKenzie ], 273 Md. [628,] 631, 331 A.2d 291 [ (1975) ], we explained that: “irregularity, in the contemplation of the rule, usually means irregularity of process or procedure ... and not an error, which in legal parlance, generally connotes a departure from truth or accuracy of which a defendant had notice and could have challenged.” An example of an irregularity that would permit a court to set aside a judgment existed in Maryland Lumber v. Savoy Constr. Co., 286 Md. 98 , 405 A.2d 741 (1979). In that case, we held that the failure of a clerk to notify a party of an entry of judgment constituted an irregularity, justifying the court to set aside the enrolled judgment. Id. at 100-01 , 405 A.2d 741 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 157 Md. App. 157 - Minger v. State

3. “At any time before sentencing, the court may permit a defendant to withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere when the withdrawal serves the interest of justice. After the imposition of sentence, on motion of a defendant filed within ten days, the court may set aside the judgment and permit the defendant to withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere if the defendant establishes that the provisions of section (c) or (d) of this Rule were not complied with or there was a violation of a plea agreement entered into pursuant to Rule 4-243. The court shall hold a hearing on any timely motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 187 Md. App. 496 - Matthews v. State