Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

323 Md. 310

593 A.2d 670

Sherman v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided August 5, 1991

Court of Appeals of Maryland · decided 1991-08-05

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Consequently, we reaffirm the holdings in Jourdan and Moss that the limitation upon this Court’s jurisdiction set forth in § 12-202 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article relates only to the action of the Court of Special Appeals in granting or denying an application for leave to appeal. Except for the nonreviewability of that specific action, we have jurisdiction over the type of cases listed in § 12-202 to the extent that such jurisdiction is conferred by § 12-201 or other statutory pro-visions. Therefore, in the present case, although we may not review the Court of Special Appeals’ exercise of discretion in granting the State’s application for leave to appeal, we are authorized to review that court’s decision on the merits remanding the case to the trial court.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Grayson v. State

Relies on Williams v. State · Jourdan v. State · Moss v. Director

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1991-08-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently July 2021

2 district · 9 state decisions

601991200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 ORDER

¶2 The Court has considered the petition for a writ of certiorari in which the petitioner seeks review of the denial by the Court of Special Appeals of his application for leave to appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County.

¶3 It is the long and well-established law that the Court has no certiorari jurisdiction to grant post-conviction relief when the Court of Special Appeals has simply denied an application for leave to appeal in a post-conviction proceeding. Md.Code (1989 Repl.Vol.), sec. 12-202 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article; Williams v. State, *312 292 Md. 201, 438 A.2d 1301 (1981); Moss v. Director, 279 Md. 561, 369 A.2d 1011 (1977); Jourdan v. State, 275 Md. 495, 341 A.2d 388 (1975). The petition for certiorari is thus hereby denied for lack of jurisdiction.

¶4 Counsel for the petitioner is charged with knowledge that the Court is without jurisdiction in this case, and it is incumbent upon counsel to so advise the petitioner.

¶5 It is further incumbent upon counsel for the petitioner to fully reimburse the petitioner for the amount of any fee paid to counsel for the filing of this petition for a writ of certiorari, including the amount of this Court’s filing fee, and to promptly advise the Court of compliance with this Order unless reasons to the contrary be shown by counsel not later than 22nd day of August, 1991.

/323/md/310 · .json · Public domain