Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1/13/2004

Scott v. State

Citations

840 A.2d 715
379 Md. 170
2004 Md. LEXIS 1

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that no hearing was required under Rule 4-345, where the court did not intend to modify, reduce, correct, or vacate the sentence
holding that the rule of lenity applies to ambiguous pronouncements
providing that a trial court judge’s ruling on a matter is generally not bound by the prior ruling of another judge on the trial court on the same case
stating that a decision by one circuit court judge is not binding on another circuit court judge because the two judges are “ ‘colleague[s] of coordinate jurisdiction.’ (quoting Stewart v. State, 319 Md. 81, 91, 570 A.2d 1229 (1990)
reviewing whether the “law of the case” doctrine applied to judges on the same trial court under a de novo standard
affirming correction of commitment record under Rule 4-351(a) and concluding that no hearing was required under Rule 4-345, where the court did not intend to modify, reduce, correct, or vacate the sentence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bell, Raker, Wilner, Cathell, Harrell, Battaglia, Eldridge, John

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

24 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.