Summary
recognizing that defense counsel's failure to object may have been "a strategic decision not to call further attention to what it considered a damaging piece of evidence"
Summary of this case from Poole v. StateOpinion
No. 13
12-17-2015
James KULBICKI v. STATE of Maryland.
ORDER
The Supreme Court of the United States having entered a per curiam order on October 5, 2015 reversing the judgment of this Court, in the above entitled case, and thereafter
This Court having considered the Petitioner's motion to remand or, in the alternative, for a stay or supplemental briefing and oral argument as to those questions not addressed previously by this Court, along with Respondent's reply, it is this 17th day of December, 2015
ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, a majority of the Court concurring, that the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals be, and it is hereby, affirmed summarily for the reasons explained in its opinion, and it is further
ORDERED, that the motion to remand or, in the alternative, for a stay or supplemental briefing and oral argument be, and it is hereby, denied, without prejudice to Petitioner pursuing his announced intent to file a petition for writ of actual innocence.