Judge, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Born 1952
Dennie v. Montgomery Cnty.
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2026-03-02
The case involved a Montgomery County employee who received a service-connected partial disability retirement pension for certain injuries and later sought workers' compensation benefits for occupational hearing loss that manifested after retirement. The Workers' Compensation Commission denied the county's request for an offset under Labor and Employment Article § 9-610, but the circuit court reversed and allowed the offset. The Appellate Court of Maryland held that the 1999 version of the offset statute applied because it was in effect at the time of disablement, and the Supreme Court's interpretation in Spevak v. Montgomery County applied retroactively to this new factual scenario. The court reasoned that, unlike a total disability pension which covers all work-related conditions, the partial disability pension was limited to specified injuries and did not cover the hearing loss, so the benefits were not similar and no offset was permitted.
labor & employment
Nensala v. State
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2026-02-02
The case involved Pascal Nensala's convictions for attempted first- and second-degree murder after he was identified by the victim as the person who stabbed him during a workplace confrontation stemming from a personal dispute. The defense sought to cross-examine the victim about his bipolar disorder diagnosis to challenge his credibility and suggest impaired perception, but the trial court excluded the inquiry as irrelevant. The appellate court affirmed the judgments, reasoning that the defense proffer lacked a factual foundation showing the disorder could seriously impair the victim's ability to perceive and recall reality at the relevant time, as bipolar disorder is typically a mood disorder without psychotic features, unlike conditions such as schizophrenia. The court also found sufficient evidence of intent, premeditation, and deliberation, and no error in the sentencing proceedings.
criminal lawprocedurecivil rights
Howard R. & D. Corp. v. IMH Columbia
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2025-12-19
The case involved a dispute over restrictive covenants on a lot in Columbia Town Center, where IMH Columbia sought to develop a mixed-use project including residential uses and on-site parking. IMH sued HRD, the enforcer of the covenants, for breach after HRD rejected the second phase of the project in its sole discretion, also claiming detrimental reliance and seeking declaratory relief that the covenants were obsolete. The circuit court interpreted the covenants, a jury found for IMH on breach and obsolescence claims awarding nearly $17 million in damages, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the covenants unambiguously gave the architectural review committee, not HRD, authority over use changes like residential development, while HRD's consent to on-site parking was not required under the facts found by the jury, leading to a breach finding. Damages for lost return on investment and increased financing costs were upheld as non-duplicative and proven with reasonable certainty.
propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure
Shuler v. State
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2025-10-31
The case involved Montay D. Shuler, who was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, robbery with a deadly weapon, and related crimes after two victims were shot to death in Baltimore. Shuler moved to suppress evidence from his warrantless arrest, claiming it lacked probable cause due to reliance on an anonymous 911 call describing the getaway vehicle, and requested a jury instruction on the voluntariness of his exculpatory statement to police. The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the convictions, finding that the caller's detailed firsthand account of the shootings and getaway, along with the vehicle's license plate, the defendant's ownership of the matching car, and his proximity to it, established probable cause under the totality of circumstances. The court also held that no evidence generated at trial supported a voluntariness instruction, as the brief post-Miranda interview produced no facts suggesting coercion and the statement was used only for impeachment.
criminal lawprocedure
Vangorder v. State
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2025-06-02
The case involved Aaron Scott Vangorder, who was convicted after a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County of multiple counts including sexual abuse of a minor by a household member, sexual abuse by a person with temporary supervision, third- and fourth-degree sexual offenses, second-degree assault, and sexual solicitation of a minor. The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, ruling that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the defendant's sexual orientation. The court reasoned that such evidence was irrelevant in child sexual abuse cases involving a pre-adolescent victim with no established link between the defendant's orientation and the alleged abuse, though it found the evidence otherwise legally sufficient to sustain the convictions on retrial.
criminal law
State v. Brand
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2025-03-31
In 2018, Tavon Brand pleaded not criminally responsible to first-degree murder and related handgun charges in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, but on the day of trial his counsel's failure to timely obtain a supporting expert report led the court to deny a postponement; following counsel's advice, Brand waived his jury trial right, believing he could not both plead guilty and later seek a jury on his NCR defense, resulting in a bifurcated bench trial where he was found guilty of the acts and criminally responsible. Brand filed a 2023 postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, and the postconviction court granted relief. On appeal, the Appellate Court of Maryland reversed in part, holding that prejudice is not presumed from the loss of a jury trial opportunity in an ineffective-assistance postconviction claim and that Brand made no showing of actual prejudice under the Strickland standard.
criminal lawprocedure