Legal Opinion · Dissent

Lopez v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided August 20, 2013No. 61Published

1DissentHarrell, J.

I dissent respectfully. I would affirm the Court of Special Appeals’s holding that the doctrine of laches may apply to bar petitions for postconviction relief filed after an unreasonable delay that results in prejudice to the State’s ability to mount a new prosecution. See Liddy v. Lamone, 398 Md. 233, 244, 919 A.2d 1276 (2007) (quoting Frederick Road Ltd. v. Brown & Sturm, 360 Md. 76, 117, 756 A.2d 963 (2000)). I would remand the present case to the postconviction court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the two-prong test for laches is satisfied here.

The Majority Opinion places…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Frederick Road Ltd. Partnership v. SturmCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
  2. Robinson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999
  3. Gleaton v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1964
  4. Liddy v. LamoneCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
  5. Robbins v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 2005

5 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