Legal Opinion · Dissent

DeWolfe v. Richmond

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided September 25, 2013No. 34Published

1Dissent

BARBERA, C.J.,

dissenting, which HARRELL and ADKINS, JJ., join.

Respectfully, I dissent. The majority holds that, “under Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, an indigent defendant is entitled to state-furnished counsel at an initial hearing before a District Court Commissioner.” Maj. Op. at 464, 76 A.3d at 1031. Certainly, such a right to counsel existed under a previous iteration of Maryland’s Public Defender Act. See DeWolfe v. Richmond, 434 Md. 403, 76 A.3d 962, 2012 WL 10853 (2012) (“Richmond I ”); Md. Code (2001, 2008 Repl. Vol.), § 16-204(b)(2) of the Criminal Procedure…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Baker v. McCollanSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. County of Riverside v. McLaughlinSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Williams v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1981
  4. Parren v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1987
  5. Nova Research, Inc. v. Penske Truck Leasing Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2008

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API