6 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gray v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Gray v. State , 388 Md. 366 , 383-84, 879 A.2d 1064 (2005). 20 CP § 7-102(a) provides: (a) In general -Subject to subsection (b) of this section, §§ 7-103 and 7-104 of this subtitle and Subtitle 2 of this title, a convicted person may begin a proceeding under this title in the circuit court for the county in which the conviction took place at any time if the person claims that: (1) the sentence or judgment was imposed in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution or laws of the State; (2) the court lacked jurisdiction to impose the sentence; (3) the sentence exc 2018See Gray v. State , 388 Md. 366 , 383-84, 879 A.2d 1064 (2005). 20 CP § 7-102(a) provides: (a) In general -Subject to subsection (b) of this section, §§ 7-103 and 7-104 of this subtitle and Subtitle 2 of this title, a convicted person may begin a proceeding under this title in the circuit court for the county in which the conviction took place at any time if the person claims that: (1) the sentence or judgment was imposed in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution or laws of the State; (2) the court lacked jurisdiction to impose the sentence; (3) the sentence exc | 1 | 2 |
Gluckstern v. Suttongreen2 sentences2009Reasons for the denial of the writ shall be in writing. [9] Section 7-102 of the Criminal Procedure Article provides: (a) In general. Subject to subsection (b) of this section, §§ 7-103 and 7-104 of this subtitle and Subtitle 2 of this title, a convicted person may begin a proceeding under this title in the circuit court for the county in which the conviction took place at any time if the person claims that: (1) the sentence or judgment was imposed in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution or laws of the State; (2) the court lacked jurisdiction to impose the s 2009Reasons for the denial of the writ shall be in writing. [9] Section 7-102 of the Criminal Procedure Article provides: (a) In general. Subject to subsection (b) of this section, §§ 7-103 and 7-104 of this subtitle and Subtitle 2 of this title, a convicted person may begin a proceeding under this title in the circuit court for the county in which the conviction took place at any time if the person claims that: (1) the sentence or judgment was imposed in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution or laws of the State; (2) the court lacked jurisdiction to impose the s | 1 | 2 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Reasons for the denial of the writ shall be in writing. [9] Section 7-102 of the Criminal Procedure Article provides: (a) In general. Subject to subsection (b) of this section, §§ 7-103 and 7-104 of this subtitle and Subtitle 2 of this title, a convicted person may begin a proceeding under this title in the circuit court for the county in which the conviction took place at any time if the person claims that: (1) the sentence or judgment was imposed in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution or laws of the State; (2) the court lacked jurisdiction to impose the s 2009Reasons for the denial of the writ shall be in writing. [9] Section 7-102 of the Criminal Procedure Article provides: (a) In general. Subject to subsection (b) of this section, §§ 7-103 and 7-104 of this subtitle and Subtitle 2 of this title, a convicted person may begin a proceeding under this title in the circuit court for the county in which the conviction took place at any time if the person claims that: (1) the sentence or judgment was imposed in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution or laws of the State; (2) the court lacked jurisdiction to impose the s | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. State
green
2 sentences1970Consistent with the apparent rationale underlying the right to take an immediate appeal on the ground of alleged violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial, see Jones v. State, 241 Md. 599 , Harris v. State, 194 Md. 288 , we held in Brown v. State, 2 Md. 1970App. 299 (1969). 2 And consistent with the apparent rationale underlying the right to take an immediate appeal on the ground of alleged violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial, we held in Brown v. State, 2 Md. | 2 | 1970–1970 |
Lewis v. Diethorn
green
1 sentence2003As we explained in Ruby v. State, the Maryland Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act "was enacted in 1958 'to create a simple statutory procedure, in place of the common law habeas corpus and coram nobis remedies, for collateral attacks upon criminal convictions and sentences.’ ” 353 Md. 100 , 106 n. 4, 724 A.2d 673 , 676 n. 4 (1999) (quoting, Gluckstern v. Sutton, 319 Md. 634, 658 , 574 A.2d 898 , 909 cert. denied, 498 U.S. 950 , 111 S.Ct. 369 , 112 L.Ed.2d 331 (1990)). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Ruby v. State
green
2 sentences2003As we explained in Ruby v. State, the Maryland Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act "was enacted in 1958 'to create a simple statutory procedure, in place of the common law habeas corpus and coram nobis remedies, for collateral attacks upon criminal convictions and sentences.’ ” 353 Md. 100 , 106 n. 4, 724 A.2d 673 , 676 n. 4 (1999) (quoting, Gluckstern v. Sutton, 319 Md. 634, 658 , 574 A.2d 898 , 909 cert. denied, 498 U.S. 950 , 111 S.Ct. 369 , 112 L.Ed.2d 331 (1990)). 2003As we explained in Ruby v. State, the Maryland Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act "was enacted in 1958 'to create a simple statutory procedure, in place of the common law habeas corpus and coram nobis remedies, for collateral attacks upon criminal convictions and sentences.’ ” 353 Md. 100 , 106 n. 4, 724 A.2d 673 , 676 n. 4 (1999) (quoting, Gluckstern v. Sutton, 319 Md. 634, 658 , 574 A.2d 898 , 909 cert. denied, 498 U.S. 950 , 111 S.Ct. 369 , 112 L.Ed.2d 331 (1990)). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Poteat v. United States
green
1 sentence2003As we explained in Ruby v. State, the Maryland Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act "was enacted in 1958 'to create a simple statutory procedure, in place of the common law habeas corpus and coram nobis remedies, for collateral attacks upon criminal convictions and sentences.’ ” 353 Md. 100 , 106 n. 4, 724 A.2d 673 , 676 n. 4 (1999) (quoting, Gluckstern v. Sutton, 319 Md. 634, 658 , 574 A.2d 898 , 909 cert. denied, 498 U.S. 950 , 111 S.Ct. 369 , 112 L.Ed.2d 331 (1990)). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Henneberry v. Sutton
green
1 sentence2003As we explained in Ruby v. State, the Maryland Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act "was enacted in 1958 'to create a simple statutory procedure, in place of the common law habeas corpus and coram nobis remedies, for collateral attacks upon criminal convictions and sentences.’ ” 353 Md. 100 , 106 n. 4, 724 A.2d 673 , 676 n. 4 (1999) (quoting, Gluckstern v. Sutton, 319 Md. 634, 658 , 574 A.2d 898 , 909 cert. denied, 498 U.S. 950 , 111 S.Ct. 369 , 112 L.Ed.2d 331 (1990)). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Lee v. State
green
1 sentence1970App. 388 , that an immediate appeal would lie, prior to a trial on the merits, from the denial of a motion asserting a violation of the constitutional right not to be twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense. *315 However, we noted in Raimondi v. State, supra, at 473: “But whether a person has been denied a speedy trial or is being placed in double jeopardy will usually turn on the facts and circumstances present in the particular case; and, at least with the exception of those cases where the trial judge concludes that the right exists and is applicable but nevertheless refuses to apply | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Jones v. State
green
1 sentence1970Consistent with the apparent rationale underlying the right to take an immediate appeal on the ground of alleged violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial, see Jones v. State, 241 Md. 599 , Harris v. State, 194 Md. 288 , we held in Brown v. State, 2 Md. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Harris v. State
green
1 sentence1970Consistent with the apparent rationale underlying the right to take an immediate appeal on the ground of alleged violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial, see Jones v. State, 241 Md. 599 , Harris v. State, 194 Md. 288 , we held in Brown v. State, 2 Md. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.