Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Cardinell

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Decided February 26, 1992No. 686, September Term, 1991Published

1ConcurrenceGarrity, Judge

I concur in the opinion by the majority.

My concurrence is based on jurisdictional grounds rather than the majority’s interpretation of Section 12-302(c)(2) of the Courts Article. That section provides the State with the right to appeal in the event a sentencing judge “failed to impose the sentence specifically mandated by the Code.”

In State v. Hannah, 307 Md. 390, 514 A.2d 16 (1986), the Court of Appeals construed the statute under consideration in the case at bar. In Hannah, the sentencing judges had imposed sentences less than the minimum five years imprisonment mandated by the handgun…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. HannahCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1986
  2. State v. ShillingCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API