Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Moten v. Stategreen2 sentences2025To be sure, the circuit court did not provide an explicit ruling as to whether Mr. Goodrich had asserted the right to self-representation, but the colloquy was sufficient to comply with our holding in Snead and the mandates of Maryland Rule 4- - 44 - 215(e). 17 Although we have held that Maryland Rule 4-215(e) is triggered by “[a]ny 16F statement that would reasonably apprise a court of defendant’s wish to discharge counsel . . . regardless of whether it came from the defendant or from defense counsel[,]” Davis, 415 Md. at 32 , 997 A.2d at 786 , and that the requirements of the Rule are mandat 2025To be sure, the circuit court did not provide an explicit ruling as to whether Mr. Goodrich had asserted the right to self-representation, but the colloquy was sufficient to comply with our holding in Snead and the mandates of Maryland Rule 4- - 44 - 215(e). 17 Although we have held that Maryland Rule 4-215(e) is triggered by “[a]ny 16F statement that would reasonably apprise a court of defendant’s wish to discharge counsel . . . regardless of whether it came from the defendant or from defense counsel[,]” Davis, 415 Md. at 32 , 997 A.2d at 786 , and that the requirements of the Rule are mandat | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Davis
green
2 sentences2025To be sure, the circuit court did not provide an explicit ruling as to whether Mr. Goodrich had asserted the right to self-representation, but the colloquy was sufficient to comply with our holding in Snead and the mandates of Maryland Rule 4- - 44 - 215(e). 17 Although we have held that Maryland Rule 4-215(e) is triggered by “[a]ny 16F statement that would reasonably apprise a court of defendant’s wish to discharge counsel . . . regardless of whether it came from the defendant or from defense counsel[,]” Davis, 415 Md. at 32 , 997 A.2d at 786 , and that the requirements of the Rule are mandat 2025To be sure, the circuit court did not provide an explicit ruling as to whether Mr. Goodrich had asserted the right to self-representation, but the colloquy was sufficient to comply with our holding in Snead and the mandates of Maryland Rule 4- - 44 - 215(e). 17 Although we have held that Maryland Rule 4-215(e) is triggered by “[a]ny 16F statement that would reasonably apprise a court of defendant’s wish to discharge counsel . . . regardless of whether it came from the defendant or from defense counsel[,]” Davis, 415 Md. at 32 , 997 A.2d at 786 , and that the requirements of the Rule are mandat | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Pinkney v. State
green
2 sentences2025To be sure, the circuit court did not provide an explicit ruling as to whether Mr. Goodrich had asserted the right to self-representation, but the colloquy was sufficient to comply with our holding in Snead and the mandates of Maryland Rule 4- - 44 - 215(e). 17 Although we have held that Maryland Rule 4-215(e) is triggered by “[a]ny 16F statement that would reasonably apprise a court of defendant’s wish to discharge counsel . . . regardless of whether it came from the defendant or from defense counsel[,]” Davis, 415 Md. at 32 , 997 A.2d at 786 , and that the requirements of the Rule are mandat 2025To be sure, the circuit court did not provide an explicit ruling as to whether Mr. Goodrich had asserted the right to self-representation, but the colloquy was sufficient to comply with our holding in Snead and the mandates of Maryland Rule 4- - 44 - 215(e). 17 Although we have held that Maryland Rule 4-215(e) is triggered by “[a]ny 16F statement that would reasonably apprise a court of defendant’s wish to discharge counsel . . . regardless of whether it came from the defendant or from defense counsel[,]” Davis, 415 Md. at 32 , 997 A.2d at 786 , and that the requirements of the Rule are mandat | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In Re Alijah Q.
green
2 sentences2021Id. at 507 , 7 A.3d at 115 . 2021Id. at 507 , 7 A.3d at 115 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Northam
green
2 sentences2014Northam, 421 Md. at 207 , 26 A.3d at 350-51 . 2014Northam, 421 Md. at 207 , 26 A.3d at 350-51 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Beard v. State
green
2 sentences1986In Beard v. State, 42 Md. 1986In Beard v. State, 42 Md. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Snead v. State
green
2 sentences1985Snead v. State, 286 Md. 122 , 406 A.2d 98 (1979). 1985Snead v. State, 286 Md. 122 , 406 A.2d 98 (1979). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.