From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Costen

Court of Appeals of Maryland.
May 15, 2014
91 A.3d 609 (Md. 2014)

Opinion

No. 5 Sept. Term, 2014.

2014-05-15

STATE of Maryland v. Robert Louis COSTEN, III.

Certiorari to the Court of Appeals (Circuit Court for Worcester County, Case No. 23–K–11–000095); Thomas C. Groton, III, J. James E. Williams, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), for petitioner. Sherrie B. Glasser, Asst. Public Defender (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), for respondent.


Certiorari to the Court of Appeals (Circuit Court for Worcester County, Case No. 23–K–11–000095); Thomas C. Groton, III, J.
James E. Williams, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), for petitioner. Sherrie B. Glasser, Asst. Public Defender (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), for respondent.
Submitted before BARBERA, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, ADKINS, McDONALD, JJ.

PER CURIAM ORDER.

The Court having considered and granted the petition for writ of certiorari in the above entitled case, it is this 15th day of May, 2014

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals be, and it is hereby, vacated and the case is remanded to that Court for further consideration in light of Nalls v. State, 437 Md. 674, 89 A.3d 1126 (2014);Melvin v. State, 437 Md. 674, 89 A.3d 1126 (2014);Szwed v. State, 438 Md. 1, 89 A.3d 1143 (2014); and Morgan v. State, 438 Md. 11, 89 A.3d 1149 (2014). Costs in this Court to be paid by the Respondent, and costs in the Court of Special Appeals to abide the result.


Summaries of

State v. Costen

Court of Appeals of Maryland.
May 15, 2014
91 A.3d 609 (Md. 2014)
Case details for

State v. Costen

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Maryland v. Robert Louis COSTEN, III.

Court:Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Date published: May 15, 2014

Citations

91 A.3d 609 (Md. 2014)
438 Md. 135

Citing Cases

State v. Breeding

We do not agree with that interpretation of the preservation requirement, and conclude that this erroneous…