158 Md. App. 635 - Gray v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he court may in its discretion reopen a post[-]conviction proceeding that was previously concluded if the court determines that such action is in the interests of justice.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 236 Md. App. 183 - Syed v. State · Gray v. State

2. “[t]here are significant differences between the filing of a petition for post[-]conviction relief and a request to reopen a post[-]conviction proceeding. For example, a person is entitled, as a matter of right, to file one post[-]conviction petition. CP § 7-103(a). The reopening of a closed post[-]conviction proceeding, however, is at the discretion of the circuit court. CP § 7-104. Also, as a matter of right, a person filing a petition for post[-]conviction relief is entitled to a hearing and the assistance of counsel. CP § 7-108(a) ; Md. Rule 4-406(a). A request that a post[-]conviction proceeding be reopened does not entitle a person to either. Under the statute, the circuit court determines if a hearing and the assistance of counsel "should be granted." CP § 7-108(b)(1). Md. Rule 4-406(a) provides that, in the absence of a stipulation that the applicable facts and law justify the requested relief, the circuit court may not reopen a proceeding or grant relief without a hearing, but a request to reopen can be denied without a hearing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 236 Md. App. 183 - Syed v. State

3. “(1) the sentence or judgment was imposed in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution or laws of the State; (2) the court lacked jurisdiction to impose the sentence; (3) the sentence exceeds the maximum allowed by law; or (4) the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack on a ground of alleged error that would otherwise be available under a writ of habeas corpus, writ of coram nobis, or other common law or statutory remedy.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 160 Md. App. 78 - Harris v. State