State v. Peterson

The Court correctly holds that this case is moot; therefore, I concur in the Court’s judgment. I also agree that this is one of those rare situations where the Court should express its views on the merits of a moot case. But I *91cannot agree with the views of either the majority or the Court of Special Appeals concerning the third sentence of Maryland Rule 4-846(c).

That third sentence requires that a probation revocation “hearing shall be held before the sentencing judge whenever practicable.” The majority reasons that a litigant ordinarily has no right to have his or her case heard before a…