Court of Appeals of Maryland· 3/13/2000
Burch v. State
Citations
- 747 A.2d 1209
- 358 Md. 278
- 2000 Md. LEXIS 107
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that because trial judge is bound to impose death penalty when jury determines sentence shall be death and thus lacks discretion in such sentencing, court may not exercise sentencing revisory power under Maryland Rule 4-345(b)
- holding that because trial judge is bound to impose death penalty when jury determines sentence shall be death and thus lacks discretion in such sentencing, court may not exercise sentencing revisory power under Maryland Rule 4-345(b)
- finding that a trial court may not reconsider or modify a death sentence imposed pursuant to a jury determination because that action would conflict with the legislative scheme
- “The clear, mandatory statutory language of Art. 27, § 413 leaves no discretion with the trial judge, who is bound by the jury’s decision, to modify the penalty[.]”
- “ ‘Shall’ ordinarily indicates a mandatory intent”
- \`Shall' ordinarily indicates a mandatory intent\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Raker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
12 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Metheny v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2000-07-24· cited 81×
- Borchardt v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2001-12-13· cited 74×
- Tharp v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2000-12-07· cited 41×
- Young v. Anne Arundel CountyCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2002-09-11· cited 29×
- People v. DunlapSupreme Court of Colorado· 2001-09-10· cited 29×
- Sidbury v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2010-05-12· cited 14×
- In Re Adoption/Guardianship No. T00032005Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2001-12-04· cited 8×
- In Re JOY D.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2014-01-29· cited 7×
- Harrison-Solomon v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2014-02-25· cited 4×
- Woodfield v. WEST RIVER IMPROVEMENT ASSOC.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2005-11-30· cited 3×
- Prince George's County v. CollingtonCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2000-03-13
- State v. WilliamsCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2022-08-31
Cites
17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Gregg v. GeorgiaSupreme Court· 1976-07-22· cited 7,936×
- Furman v. GeorgiaSupreme Court· 1972-06-29· cited 5,066×
- Woodson v. North CarolinaSupreme Court· 1976-07-02· cited 2,907×
- Jurek v. TexasSupreme Court· 1976-07-02· cited 2,034×
- Proffitt v. FloridaSupreme Court· 1976-07-22· cited 1,798×
- Roberts v. LouisianaSupreme Court· 1976-10-12· cited 802×
- Hopkinson v. StateWyoming Supreme Court· 1981-07-02· cited 259×
- Mark A. Hopkinson v. Duane Shillinger, and the Attorney General of the State of WyomingTenth Circuit· 1989-12-01· cited 189×
- Bartholomey v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1972-12-04· cited 115×
- Burch v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1997-07-03· cited 112×
- Blackwell v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1976-11-09· cited 67×
- Hopkinson v. StateWyoming Supreme Court· 1985-08-23· cited 22×
- State v. GuzmanNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1984-01-13· cited 22×
- Hopkinson v. ShillingerD. Wyoming· 1986-08-04· cited 20×
- Pope v. Secretary of PersonnelCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1980-10-16· cited 20×
- State v. GuzmanNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1985-04-04· cited 9×
- State v. CheadleNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1985-05-30· cited 4×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.