Court of Appeals of Maryland· 10/27/2011

Douglas v. State

Citations

31 A.3d 250
423 Md. 156

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

concluding that § 8-301, which governs petitions for writs of actual innocence, is separate from the UPPA
recognizing that “decisions on the merits of requests for new trials based on newly discovered evidence, whether filed pursuant to Rule 4-331 or the [actual innocence statute], are committed to the hearing court’s sound discretion”
holding that, while the defendant’s pro se petition for a writ of actual innocence explicitly did not ask for a hearing, the petition nevertheless “indicated [the defendant’s] desire” for one and “recited” pertinent provisions of the statute at issue
observing that habeas petition is appealable “where the UPPA does not provide a remedy”
explaining that the purpose of the statutory scheme is to streamline post-conviction remedies
stating a petitioner may not file multiple petitions for a writ of actual innocence based on the same claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Barbera, Harrell

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

50 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

25 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

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.