Walker v. State
Opinion
Circuit Court for Carroll County Case No. C-06-CR-19-000833 Argued: December 5, 2022 IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF MARYLAND
Pet. No. 141, September Term, 2022
No. 19, September Term, 2022
KEVRON D. WALKER
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND
Fader, C.J.
Watts
Hotten*
Booth
Biran
Gould
Eaves,
JJ.
PER CURIAM
Filed: May 30, 2024
*Hotten, J., participated in the hearing and Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal decision in this matter as an active justice. She Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State participated in the decision to dismiss the Government Article) this document is authentic.
petition as improvidently granted as a senior 2024.05.30 justice on recall.
15:23:29 -04'00'
Gregory Hilton, Clerk
* IN THE
KEVRON D. WALKER * SUPREME COURT
* OF MARYLAND
v.
* Pet. No. 141, September Term, 2022
STATE OF MARYLAND * No. 19, September Term, 2022 ORDER
In an earlier order, the Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, dismissed the case, and directed that the mandate issue immediately. Both parties then requested that the mandate be withdrawn and sought additional relief. As additional relief, the State asked the Court to clarify its order and Mr. Walker, Petitioner, asked that the Court reconsider its decision in light of his Supplemental Reply Brief, which he filed contemporaneously with his motion. Upon consideration of the parties’ motions, the Court withdrew its mandate and vacated its earlier order but did not rule on the other relief requested by the parties.
Now, upon consideration of the briefs, the supplemental briefs, including Petitioner’s Supplemental Reply Brief, the circuit court’s written findings following an earlier remand, and the entire record as supplemented, it is this 30th day of May 2024, by the Supreme Court of Maryland, ORDERED that the writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted and No.
19, September Term, 2022 is closed in this Court, and it is further, ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is granted to the extent that Petitioner requested that the Court provide him an opportunity to address the State’s
arguments in his Supplemental Reply Brief, as contemplated by the Court’s prior scheduling orders. The Court accepted the Supplemental Reply Brief and considered it along with all other materials submitted by the parties. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is otherwise denied; and it is further ORDERED that the State’s motion for clarification is granted to the extent of the clarification provided in this order; and it is further ORDERED that costs are to be paid by Petitioner and the mandate is to issue forthwith.
/s/ Matthew J. Fader
Chief Justice
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
316 A.3d 528 (Walker v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.