160 Md. App. 672 - Parker v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Current Law/Background: Under the English common law, a writ of error coram nobis was a remedy allowing a court to correct an error in fact. The writ was used “... to bring before the court facts which were not brought into issue at the trial of the case, and which were material to the validity and regularity of the proceedings, and which if known by the court, would have prevented the judgment.” Skok v. State, 861 Md. 52 , 68 [ 760 A.2d 647 ] (2000) (quoting Madison v. State, 205 Md. 425, 432 [ 109 A.2d 96 ] (1954)[) ]. In Skok v. State, the Court of Appeals extended the writ of error coram nobis to apply to errors in law. See Skok at 78 [ 760 A.2d 647 ]. A petition for a writ or error coram nobis “... provides a remedy for a person who is not incarcerated and not on parole or probation, who is faced with a significant collateral consequence of his or her conviction, and who can legitimately challenge the conviction on constitutional [or fundamental] grounds.” Parker v. State, 160 Md.App. 672, 677 [ 866 A.2d 885 ] (2005) (citing Skok at 78 [ 760 A.2d 647 ]). The petitioner bears the burden of proof “... to show that the grounds for challenging the criminal conviction are of a constitutional, jurisdictional, or fundamental character; that the petitioner is suffering or facing significant collateral consequences from the conviction; and that there is no other statutory or common law remedy available.” See Parker at 678 (citing Skok at 78-80 [ 760 A.2d 647 ]). In Holmes v. Stat”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Smith