Walker v. State

  Circuit Court for Carroll County
  Case No. C-06-CR-19-000833
  Argued: December 5, 2022
                                                             IN THE SUPREME COURT

                                                                   OF MARYLAND

                                                         Pet. No. 141, September Term, 2022

                                                           No. 19, September Term, 2022
                                                    ______________________________________

                                                                KEVRON D. WALKER


                                                                           v.


                                                             STATE OF MARYLAND
                                                    ______________________________________

                                                           Fader, C.J.
                                                           Watts
                                                           Hotten*
                                                           Booth
                                                           Biran
                                                           Gould
                                                           Eaves,
                                                                    JJ.
                                                    ______________________________________

                                                                 PER CURIAM
                                                    ______________________________________

                                                                  Filed: May 30, 2024


                                                    *Hotten, J., participated in the hearing and
Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal
                                                    decision in this matter as an active justice. She
Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State      participated in the decision to dismiss the
Government Article) this document is authentic.
                                                    petition as improvidently granted as a senior
                                 2024.05.30         justice on recall.
                                 15:23:29 -04'00'


Gregory Hilton, Clerk
                                            *       IN THE

 KEVRON D. WALKER                           *       SUPREME COURT

                                            *       OF MARYLAND
               v.
                                            *       Pet. No. 141, September Term, 2022

 STATE OF MARYLAND                          *       No. 19, September Term, 2022

                                          ORDER

       In an earlier order, the Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently

granted, dismissed the case, and directed that the mandate issue immediately. Both parties

then requested that the mandate be withdrawn and sought additional relief. As additional

relief, the State asked the Court to clarify its order and Mr. Walker, Petitioner, asked that

the Court reconsider its decision in light of his Supplemental Reply Brief, which he filed

contemporaneously with his motion. Upon consideration of the parties’ motions, the Court

withdrew its mandate and vacated its earlier order but did not rule on the other relief

requested by the parties.

       Now, upon consideration of the briefs, the supplemental briefs, including

Petitioner’s Supplemental Reply Brief, the circuit court’s written findings following an

earlier remand, and the entire record as supplemented, it is this 30th day of May 2024, by

the Supreme Court of Maryland,

       ORDERED that the writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted and No.

19, September Term, 2022 is closed in this Court, and it is further,

       ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is granted to the extent that

Petitioner requested that the Court provide him an opportunity to address the State’s
arguments in his Supplemental Reply Brief, as contemplated by the Court’s prior

scheduling orders. The Court accepted the Supplemental Reply Brief and considered it

along with all other materials submitted by the parties.              Petitioner’s motion for

reconsideration is otherwise denied; and it is further

       ORDERED that the State’s motion for clarification is granted to the extent of the

clarification provided in this order; and it is further

       ORDERED that costs are to be paid by Petitioner and the mandate is to issue

forthwith.



                                                          /s/ Matthew J. Fader
                                                              Chief Justice




                                               2