49 Md. App. 531 - Prokopis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 10 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. “First, he contends that the hearing judge erred in not applying the plain error set forth in Md. Rule 75 7h. He suggests that a post conviction hearing judge is authorized to recognize plain error and correct it. The rule, however, is simply not applicable to post conviction proceedings. In urging that we now apply the plain error rule applicant is actually requesting that we consider this proceeding, not as an application for leave to appeal a denial of post conviction relief, but to recognize it as a direct appeal. We are not empowered to do so, however, even if we were so inclined. The Court of Appeals has held that post conviction may not be employed as a substitute for a direct appeal. See Kelly v. Warden, 243 Md. 717 , 222 A.2d 835 (1966). Since post conviction may not be used as a substitute for a direct appeal, we may not, under the guise of applying the plain error rule, permit the rule to override the post conviction statute, § 645A(c), under which the hearing judge had determined that the jury instruction issue had been waived. On the contrary, while Art. 27, § 645A(c) obviously applies to post conviction proceedings, Md. Rule 757h. does not. Applicant’s sleight of hand will not avail. Prokopis v. State, 49 Md.App. 531, 534 , 433 A.2d 1191, 1193 (1981).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Adams