Suspended License Maryland Attorneys Baltimore Highway Code 16-303
Suspended License Maryland Attorneys Baltimore Highway Code 16-303
James v. State
Facts:
On defendant’s appeal from a conviction for driving with a suspended license under Md. Code Ann., Transp. § 16-303(c) (2002), the United States District Court for the District of Maryland certified a question of law as to the meaning of “used by the public” in Md. Code Ann., Transp. § 11-127 (2002), defining “highway,” and Md. Code Ann., Transp. § 21-101.1(b)(1) (2002), the private property provision.
If you are facing a traffic case in Baltimore, Maryland, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747
We have client meeting locations in Montgomery County (Rockville) & Baltimore, Maryland
We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.
Speeding Maryland Lawyers Montgomery Fine Driving Under Influence Code 21-801.1
Holdings:
The Maryland Court made the following holding:
- The Code defines “highways” as the entire width between the boundary lines of any way or thoroughfare of which any part is used by the public for vehicular travel, whether or not the way or thoroughfare has been dedicated to the public and accepted by any proper authority. Md. Code Ann., Transp. § 11-127 (2002).
- The applicable test for determining whether a thoroughfare, roadway, or other property is “used by the public” in conformity with the requirements of either Md. Code Ann., Transp. § 11-127 (2002) or Md. Code Ann., Transp. § 21-101.1(b)(1) (2002) is a factual inquiry regarding the nature and extent of the use of the thoroughfare, roadway or property by the public. Whether the public’s access to or use of the thoroughfare or roadway is restricted in any way by the owner is of no consideration to this inquiry.
- The phrase “used by the public,” found in the definition of “highway” contained in Md. Code Ann., Transp. § 11-127 (2002) and in the private property provision contained in Md. Code Ann., Transp. § 21-101.1(b)(1) (2002) does not require the unrestricted right of the public to the use of the highway or private property in order to render the highway or private property subject to the requirements of Md. Code Ann., Transp. § 16-303 (2002).
We have client meeting locations in Montgomery County (Rockville) & Baltimore, Maryland. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.
The SRIS Law Group Maryland lawyers will do their best to help you with your case. Contact a Maryland lawyer from our firm to discuss your case.
A Maryland lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your case in Maryland and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Rockville (Montgomery County) & Baltimore.
Courts we cover in Baltimore, Maryland
Baltimore County Circuit Court
County Courts Building
401 Bosley Avenue
Towson, MD 21204
Baltimore County District Court
120 E. Chesapeake Avenue
Towson, MD 21286-5307
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
DUI Maryland Drug Possession Evidence Distribute Attorneys Montgomery County
DUI Maryland Drug Possession Evidence Distribute Attorneys Montgomery County
Dennis v. State
Facts:
Defendant sought review of the decision of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (Maryland), which convicted defendant in a non-jury trial of the offenses of possession of phencyclidine with intent to distribute and driving under the influence of a drug. Defendant was sentenced to a total of three years imprisonment.
DUI Maryland Drug Possession Evidence Distribute Attorneys
Issue:
- Whether the trial court had erred in admitting evidence of drugs allegedly seized from defendant’s automobile?
Discussions:
On appeal defendant argued that the trial court had erred in admitting evidence of drugs allegedly seized from defendant’s automobile and the trial court had erred in admitting the testimony of a chemist. The court affirmed defendant’s convictions. The court held that the testimony of one police officer provided the necessary chain of custody and the state’s failure to have called a second officer did not render the chain of custody evidence inadequate. It was only necessary for one of the officers to have testified when two officers jointly possessed the evidence. There was no possibility of tampering. The court also held that the expert that testified as to the drug seized from defendant was properly qualified as a witness. The witness possessed the training and experience required to have been an expert and her lack of certification did not disqualify her from being an expert. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it accepted the individual as an expert witness.
The SRIS Law Group Maryland lawyers will do their best to help you with your case. Contact a Maryland lawyer from our firm to discuss your case. A Maryland lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your case in Maryland and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Rockville (Montgomery County) & Baltimore.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
DUI Maryland Double Jeopardy Contempt Attorneys Cecil County
DUI Maryland Double Jeopardy Contempt Attorneys Cecil County
Judith v. State
Facts:
Defendant pleaded guilty to driving under the influence. The Circuit Court for Cecil County (Maryland) found defendant in contempt for being presumptively intoxicated at the proceeding, and then ordered a new trial. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that double jeopardy had attached due to the acceptance of the plea. The circuit court denied the motion and defendant appealed.
DUI Maryland Double Jeopardy Contempt Attorneys
Issue:
- Whether the defendant had been intoxicated at his plea hearing and is guilty of contempt?
Discussions:
The circuit court judge found defendant in contempt and ordered a new trial after he presumptively found that defendant had been intoxicated at his plea hearing. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the new trial on the basis that jeopardy had attached due to the acceptance of the plea and subsequent sentencing, and therefore, further trial on the matter was barred. On appeal, the court held that: (1) defendant’s behavior did not constitute contempt because it was exemplary and he had done nothing to bring disrespect or disregard to the authority and administration of the law; (2) the circuit court erred in striking the judgment that was imposed based on defendant’s guilty plea because defendant fully understood all of his rights and the effect of the plea and there was no direct proof that he was intoxicated at the plea proceeding; and, even if he were intoxicated, his incompetence should not have been presumed merely due to intoxication; and (3) striking the finding of guilt and subjecting defendant to a new trial would have violated the prohibition against double jeopardy.
The SRIS Law Group Maryland lawyers will do their best to help you with your case. Contact a Maryland lawyer from our firm to discuss your case. A Maryland lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your case in Maryland and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Rockville (Montgomery County) & Baltimore.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
DUI Maryland Breathalyzer Test Prejudicial Testimony Attorneys Harford County
DUI Maryland Breathalyzer Test Prejudicial Testimony Attorneys Harford County
Patrick v. State
Facts:
Defendant appealed his conviction entered in the Circuit Court for Harford County (Maryland), for driving under the influence of alcohol, asserting that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his refusal to take a breathalyzer test, refusing to give a properly requested instruction, and in admitting irrelevant, prejudicial testimony.
DUI Maryland Breathalyzer Test Prejudicial Testimony Attorneys Harford County
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his refusal to take a breathalyzer test?
Discussions:
Defendant was arrested after he caused another motorist to leave the road and began a fight with that motorist. After being advised of his rights to take a chemical test of his breath, he refused. On appeal from his conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol, he asserted that trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce into evidence the fact of his refusal. The court affirmed, holding that the evidence concerned his refusal to submit to a chemical test and Md. Code Ann., Trans. § 16-205.2, which prohibited the use of a refusal to take a preliminary breath test, did not apply. The preliminary breath test was not the same test contemplated by § 16-205.1. Md. Code Ann., Trans. § 16-205.2 dealt exclusively with the preliminary breath test, while Md. Code Ann., Trans. § 16-205.1 concerns the chemical breath test. Because defendant was placed under arrest, was given a battery of field sobriety tests, and was advised of his right to take a chemical breath test which he refused to do, the statute which came into play was Md. Code Ann., Trans. § 16-205.1.
The SRIS Law Group Maryland lawyers will do their best to help you with your case. Contact a Maryland lawyer from our firm to discuss your case. A Maryland lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your case in Maryland and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Rockville (Montgomery County) & Baltimore.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
DUI Maryland Probation Violation Attorneys Harford County
DUI Maryland Probation Violation Attorneys Harford County
State v. Hunter
Facts:
Defendant was arrested twice for driving while intoxicated and driving under the influence of alcohol. When the trial on the second offense was held on June 8, 1987, the trial court accepted defendant’s guilty plea, denied defendant’s request for probation before judgment and entered a verdict of guilty.
DUI Maryland Probation Violation Attorneys
Issue:
- Whether the trial court could have properly granted probation before judgment?
Discussions:
On defendant’s motion for reconsideration, the trial court withdrew judgment and entered probation before judgment. The trial for the first offense was held on March 10, 1988, and the trial court accepted defendant’s guilty plea and granted probation before judgment. The state alleged that, because defendant had previously been convicted of the offense of driving under the influence, the trial court erred in granting probation before judgment in the later trial on the first offense. The court affirmed the trial court and held that the trial court did not err in granting probation before judgment in the later trial. Because the later trial was for the February 21, 1987, violation and the second violation did not occur until after that date, the trial court could have properly granted probation before judgment.
The SRIS Law Group Maryland lawyers will do their best to help you with your case. Contact a Maryland lawyer from our firm to discuss your case. A Maryland lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your case in Maryland and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Rockville (Montgomery County) & Baltimore.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Maryland Lawyer
