Floyd v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Floyd v. State

474 A.2d 880, 299 Md. 491, 1984 Md. LEXIS 282

Court of Appeals of Maryland·Decided May 4, 1984·No. No. 155·Published

Opinion

ORDER

The Court having granted certiorari in this case and having heard argument on the issues presented in the appellant’s brief; and

It appearing that Maryland Rule 813 inhibits the Court from considering the question raised in the appellant’s brief, but not raised in the certiorari petition, of whether any evidence was introduced at the sentencing hearing which was legally sufficient to prove the prior District of Columbia conviction relied upon for enhanced punishment under Md.Code (1982 Repl.Vol.) Art. 27, § 643B, it is this 4th day of May, 1984,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the case is dismissed as improvidently granted without prejudice to appellant’s right to seek post conviction relief under Code, Art. 27, § 645A.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

The Court having granted certiorari in this case and having heard argument on the issues presented in the appellant’s brief; and

It appearing that Maryland Rule 813 inhibits the Court from considering the question raised in the appellant’s brief, but not raised in the certiorari petition, of whether any evidence was introduced at the sentencing hearing which was legally sufficient to prove the prior District of Columbia conviction relied upon for enhanced punishment under Md.Code (1982 Repl.Vol.) Art. 27, § 643B, it is this 4th day of May, 1984,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the case is dismissed as improvidently granted without prejudice to appellant’s right to seek post conviction relief under Code, Art. 27, § 645A.

Floyd v. State, 474 A.2d 880, 299 Md. 491, 1984 Md. LEXIS 282 (Md. 1984).

Pincite

474 A.2d 880 (Floyd v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.