Edmund v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• approving trial court’s decision to address the merits of the petitioner’s Rule 4-252 motion where “there was no sandbagging of the State,” which had an opportunity to respond in advance of the motions hearing
• charging document that complied with Rule 4-202(a) satisfied purpose of Article 21

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).