Stachowski v. State; Stockstill v. State, 416 Md. 276

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals considered whether it had jurisdiction to review writs of certiorari in two unrelated cases involving statutory limitations on review after the Court of Special Appeals granted leave to appeal. The court held that Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 12-202 restricts review of the specific decision granting or denying leave to appeal, but does not generally bar review of the merits after the case is placed on the regular appeal docket. The opinion addresses the Stachowski guilty-plea case and the Stockstill probation-revocation case together.

Holdings

1. In the categories listed in § 12-202, the Court of Appeals may exercise certiorari jurisdiction only when the Court of Special Appeals has rendered a decision on the merits or viability of the appeal, or on the status or rights of a party; merely granting or denying leave to appeal is not reviewable.
2. Transfer of a case to the Court of Special Appeals' regular appeal docket is an internal administrative action and, standing alone, does not create Court of Appeals certiorari jurisdiction.
3. The Court of Appeals lacked certiorari jurisdiction over both cases because the Court of Special Appeals had granted leave to appeal but had rendered no merits, viability, or rights/status decision.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 12-202 deprived the Court of Appeals of certiorari jurisdiction when the Court of Special Appeals had granted leave to appeal in a case involving a guilty plea or probation revocation but had not decided the merits.
2. Whether transfer of a case to the Court of Special Appeals' regular appeal docket, without a merits or viability decision, was sufficient to permit the Court of Appeals to exercise certiorari jurisdiction.

Disposition

dismissed