Preview:

REPORTED

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 824 SEPTEMBER TERM, 1999 _________________________________ __

PHILIP E. BERRINGER

v.

NEVETT STEELE, JR. ET AL.

_________________________________ __

Wenner, Hollander, Sonner, JJ. _________________________________ __

Opinion by Hollander, J. _________________________________ __

Filed: August 31, 2000

-1-

In this legal malpractice case, we must determine whether the Circuit Court for Baltimore County erred in granting summary judgment to Nevett Steele, Jr., Esquire, Michael J. Gentile, Esquire, "Firm"), and the Law Firm in of Nevett Steele, with Jr., P.A. (the

appellees,

connection

their

post-trial

representation of Philip E. Berringer, appellant, who had been convicted of theft and misappropriation of funds by a fiduciary. Berringer presents two general questions for our consideration, which we have rephrased slightly: I. Did the circuit judgment? court err in awarding summary

II.

Did the circuit court abuse its discretion in denying appellant's post-trial motion to alter or amend judgment?

Appellant also raises four issues, which we have rephrased, reordered, and condensed as follows:1

1

The issues are set forth in appellant's brief as follows: The Trial Court's Opinion Completely Ignores Berringer's Allegations, Supported by Record Evidence, of the Defendants' Negligence and Breach of Contract With Regard to Sentencing. The Court's Grant of Summary Judgment on the Issue of the Defendants' Failure to File a Notice of Appeal on Berringer's Behalf is Based Upon a Demonstrably Incorrect Reading of the Complaint by the Court. There is No Requirement Under Maryland Law that Berringer Demonstrate That He Has Obtained Post(continued...) -2-

A.

B.

C.

I.

Did appellant's failure to obtain post conviction relief bar his legal malpractice claim against appellees? Did the circuit court correctly interpret appellant's complaint in determining that he knew appellees did not intend to file a notice of appeal on appellant's behalf and conclude that such knowledge barred recovery? In its memorandum and ruling awarding summary judgment, did the circuit court ignore appellant's allegations of appellees' negligence and breach of contract with respect to their representation of appellant at sentencing?

II.

III.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND2 Appellant filed his legal malpractice suit on January 30, 1998, after years of litigation arising from his involvement with the National Computer Ribbon Corporation ("NCRC"), a small From April 1986 to June 1993, Berringer was

manufacturing firm.

the president, chief executive officer, and a director of NCRC.

1

(...continued) Conviction Relief Against These Defendants Prior to Filing This Legal Malpractice Lawsuit. Berringer's Petition for Post Conviction Relief Assessed Only Whether the Assistance Provided by Counsel Was Constitutionally Ineffective and Did Not, and Could Not, Address Whether A Party Had Demonstrated An Adequate Basis for a New Trial or For Appeal.

D.

The facts are derived principally from appellant's complaint and the exhibits attached thereto. Where disputed, the facts have been construed in favor of appellant. -3-

2

In November 1991, Joanne Hardy resigned her position as NCRC's production manager. Shortly thereafter, Berringer

indefinitely suspended William Hardy, Joanne's husband, who was an NCRC salesman, director, and shareholder, pending an

investigation into the allegedly unauthorized removal of files and documents from NCRC. Mr. Hardy and another director, Frank

Schmidt, asserted that the file and document removal were part of their investigation of fraud and embezzlement purportedly

committed by Berringer.

In January 1992, Berringer terminated

Mr. Hardy for alleged conversion of a company automobile. On May 1, 1992, the Hardys initiated a wrongful termination suit against NCRC, Berringer, and Maria Staab. Staab was a

member of the NCRC board, the company's office manager, and its corporate secretary. terminated, they chose and to Ms. "blow The Hardys claimed that Mr. Hardy had been Hardy the constructively whistle" on terminated, because

Berringer's

fraudulent

procurement of over $200,000 in NCRC funds through a company called E&L Enterprises ("E&L"). After a three-week trial, the

jury rendered a verdict against Berringer and NCRC for nearly $3 million, appellant. In October 1993, Berringer was charged in Baltimore County including $650,000 in punitive damages against

-4-

with

fraudulent

misappropriation

by

a

fiduciary

and

felony

theft. J.,

The case was tried to a jury in the circuit court (Howe, beginning on December by 12, 1994. At trial, an

presiding) was

appellant

represented

Stewart

Lyons,

Esquire,

Assistant Public Defender. The evidence presented at Berringer's criminal trial3

revealed that NCRC used various subcontractors to perform some of its assembly and processing work. NCRC paid out more than $227,000 to Over a period of time, E&L based on invoices

submitted for subcontracting work allegedly performed for NCRC. The evidence showed, however, that E&L had not performed the services, and that Berringer, who was affiliated with E&L, took the money paid on the invoices and deposited it into his

personal bank account.

Berringer maintained that he and his

associates had performed the work reflected on the invoices at night and on the weekends, when the regular NCRC staff was not present. court then at The jury convicted appellant of both charges. denied the Berringer's Baltimore request for bail, and he The was

detained

County

Detention

Center

pending

sentencing. On December 28, 1994, Berringer, through Lyons, moved for

The record before us does not include transcripts from the criminal case, although excerpts have been provided. -5-

3

a new trial, proffering the following "reasons": 1. That juror number three, Denise Shipowick, disliked co-defendant Maria Staab.[4] 2. That Maria Staab and Mrs. Shipowick live in the same neighborhood. A couple of years ago, Mrs. Shipowick's son assaulted and battered Mrs. Staab's son. The Staabs insisted that [Mrs.] Shipowick's son be charged in juvenile court. Both Maria Staab and her husband Bernie Staab were in juvenile court for Mrs. Shipowick's son's case. 3. That both Maria Staab and her husband Bernie Staab believe that Mrs. Shipowick holds a feeling of animosity to them, and that Mrs. Shipowick would have recognized Maria Staab's name when the names of the potential witnesses were read during voir dire. 4. That one of the grounds for a new trial is the bias and disqualification of jurors. [Citation omitted.] 5. That, as a second ground, the defense presented uncontradicted evidence that the Defendant was owed or entitled to much more money than he allegedly stole from the corporation. In light of this, the jury's verdict was clearly against the weight of the evidence. [Citation omitted.] 6. And for such other and further reasons as may be assigned at a hearing on this motion. A hearing on that motion, and sentencing, were scheduled for January 31, 1995. Dissatisfied with Lyons, Berringer engaged private counsel.

There is no other indication in the record that Staab was indicted and tried with Berringer. In fact, cover pages included with excerpts from the transcripts of appellant's criminal trial reveal a caption of "State of Maryland v. Phillip E. Berringer," and only one case number. In addition, only one attorney is identified as counsel "For the Defendant." -6-

4

On December 28, 1994, while incarcerated, Berringer met with Steele and related a number of purported deficiencies in Lyons's representation, including the failure to gain admission in

evidence of fourteen documents that subsequently "disappeared" from the court. amended hearing. motion Steele advised Berringer that he would file an for new trial and attempt to secure a bail

According to appellant's malpractice complaint, Steele

agreed with Berringer "that the first and most important thing to do was to get a" transcript of appellant's criminal trial, and "Steele assured Berringer that Steele would order the

Transcript immediately and that Steele should have a copy within a few weeks." meet with of that Steele further advised Berringer that he would Howe and the prosecutor exhibits. in response to ascertain Berringer to the told

Judge the

location Steele

fourteen was

missing

Lyons

hostile

Berringer's

recommendation that he move for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Consequently, Steele advised Berringer Berringer, in turn, assured

that he would note the appeal.

Steele that his aunt, Ruth Walsh, would furnish any additional money on Berringer's behalf if needed for the appeal. The following day, December 29, 1994, Gentile brought

Berringer an engagement letter, a copy of the motion for new trial filed by Lyons, and a copy of the amended motion for new

-7-

trial that appellees had filed that day. signed by Steele, said, in relevant part:

The letter, which was

Thank you for asking us to represent you in the criminal matter pending before Judge Howe. It is a very interesting case. I think we developed some good ideas in our discussion last night. I have visited Stewart Lyons and left a message with Bruce Penczek[, a certified public accountant,] in order to make arrangements to meet with him to discuss preparation of a financial analysis. . . . I am operating under the assumption that Ruth [Walsh] will issue a $20,000.00 check to my firm. . . . I will deposit the $20,000.00 in our escrow account and bill against it at the rate of $180.00.00 an hour for my time and $135.00 an hour for Mike Gentile. I will delegate the primary responsibility for the financial investigation, organization, and compilation to Bruce Penczek. This should help to keep the hourly rates and costs down and enhance the quality of the work. I will pay Bruce Penczek his retainer out of the money we are holding in our escrow account. My plan is to obtain from Stewart Lyons the various records he has, let Bruce Penczek review those, and have Bruce meet with you. We will send detailed monthly billing statements with a description of our services and the expenses incurred. Interest will be charged at the annual rate of 12% on unpaid balances over 30 days. You will be responsible for reimbursing us for all advanced expenses that we make such as expert fees, trial transcripts, photocopying, computer research, hand-deliveries, overnight mail, long-distance telephone, and other expenses incurred up to the date of receipt of your written notice. We reserve the right to withdraw from representation for good cause such as your refusal to cooperate with our office or your failure to maintain an account in good standing. The firm will not -8-

discontinue legal services without giving you notice. * * *

Our undertaking is to represent you in regard to the reduction of bail, the motion for new trial, and the sentencing before Judge Howe. This agreement does not include an appeal of the conviction. If you are in agreement with the above, would you please sign the copy enclosed herein and return it to me. A self-addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience. (Emphasis added). Appellant was dissatisfied with the terms of the agreement, and advised Gentile that Steele should prepare a revised

engagement letter to reflect the following: $170 and $125 for Steele and Gentile,

(1) hourly rates of respectively, in

accordance with discussions during the December 28 meeting; (2) filing a notice of appeal by appellees, with appellees to

contact Ruth Walsh if additional funds were required; and (3) Berringer did not want Steele to expend funds on retaining Bruce Penczek to conduct a financial analysis. Nevertheless,

Berringer signed and dated the engagement letter on December 29, 1994,5 although none of the requested changes had been made. The amended motion for new trial repeated the first five paragraphs of the original motion, renumbered the sixth

Appellant included an unsigned copy of the letter as an exhibit to his complaint. In support of their motion, appellees included a signed, dated copy of the letter. -9-

5

paragraph as new paragraph 7, and added the following, in part: 6. That, as a third ground, the court erred in evidentiary rulings including the exclusion of evidence related to the Defendant's lack of concealment, the absence of loss on the part of [NCRC], proof that the payments were authorized, that persons other than the Defendant held a majority interest in the corporation, and possible bias on the part of prosecution witness Joanne Hardy and including the denial of Defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence of $91,042.00 paid to E&L Enterprises in 1991. Error by the court is a ground for granting a new trial. [Citation omitted.] Steele met with Berringer again on January 6, 1995, and told Berringer that he would revise the engagement letter and submit it to Berringer for his review and signature. Steele also

advised appellant that the transcript of the criminal proceeding had been ordered and that it would cost approximately $5,000. Steele also indicated that he was then preparing a notice of appeal, which would be filed shortly. On the same day, Dr.

Ellen McDaniel, a forensic psychiatrist, interviewed appellant, notwithstanding McDaniel. that he never approved the retention of Dr.

Moreover, Berringer never received any information

concerning the results of Dr. McDaniel's interview. Steele next met with Berringer on January 19, 1995.

Berringer again complained about the use of Penczek, requested a revised engagement letter, and inquired as to the notice of appeal. Steele indicated that if Gentile had not already done He also said

so, the appeal would be noted later the same day. -10-

that he would bring a revised engagement letter with him the following day. Although Steele visited Berringer on January 20, He

1995, Steele did not bring an amended engagement letter.

also informed appellant that he had not yet received a copy of the trial a transcript, copy of but the would notice make of certain that appellant further

received

appeal.

Steele

suggested that their efforts were best focused on the motion for new trial because, in Steele's opinion, Judge Howe would likely impose a substantial sentence. At a meeting on January 26, 1995, Steele told Berringer that Gentile had not filed an appeal because Gentile believed it was a waste of time. Furthermore, Steele indicated that he had met

with Judge Howe and the prosecutor, and was waiting to hear about the missing documents. office would deliver the Steele also indicated that his transcript to Berringer the

trial

following day. According to the complaint, Steele and Gentile telephoned Berringer's wife, the attorneys representing NCRC (which was

then purportedly controlled by the Hardys), and other attorneys who had assisted in the "illegal takeover" of NCRC. These

communications were evidenced by an itemized invoice from the Firm to Walsh. Berringer complained that appellees "waste[d]

time and money" calling his wife, and expressed his displeasure

-11-

with appellees' decision to communicate with counsel retained by "adverse" parties. During a meeting between Steele and Berringer on January 30, 1995, Steele advised Berringer, inter alia, that: (1) he had not acted to secure the transcript from the criminal trial; (2)

after conversing with "adverse" counsel, he was persuaded of Berringer's guilt; (3) he was convinced that Berringer would receive convince NCRC, and a substantial not to prison pursue sentence stock Walsh unless Berringer claims not to could

Walsh

ownership agreed

against sue the

unless

Berringer

and

attorneys who assisted in the takeover of NCRC by the Hardys and Schmidt; (4) if Walsh and Berringer agreed not to sue "everyone involved with the takeover of NCRC", then the only hope would be to ask Judge Howe to reduce any sentence in light of appellant's psychological problems and agreement to house arrest; and (5) he had filed a sentencing memorandum on Berringer's behalf on

January 27, 1995, without first consulting with appellant. Although the complaint indicates that Berringer never

received a copy of the sentencing memorandum, a copy was filed in support of the malpractice action. The memorandum first

traced appellant's personal background and employment history. It also detailed Dr. McDaniel's recommendation that appellant engage in counseling for at least one year, and indicated that

-12-

appellant was "willing and able to begin this as soon as he is permitted to attend the counseling sessions at Dr. McDaniel's offices." Additionally, appellant was to participate in a

community service program for the homeless through a church in Baltimore. been Moreover, the memorandum reported that appellant had employment as a sales executive with the Best

offered

Ribbon Corporation and that his hours would be 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., requiring his absence from home from 7:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Appellees' interpretation of the sentencing guidelines,

reflected in the memorandum, revealed that appellant could be sentenced to six months of probation. The memorandum also indicated that appellant was involved in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. A report produced by

Penczek was attached to the memorandum, analyzing Berringer's financial situation in light of the bankruptcy and the judgment rendered in the Hardys' wrongful discharge action. The

memorandum continued: In addition, counsel for the defendant have been informed that NCRC has settled its suit against their former accountants for an amount in excess of $300,000. As the Complaint in that matter indicates, the bulk of the compensatory relief sought was for $240,000 which defendant Berringer diverted from the company. The remainder of the compensatory relief sought in that case was for the fees paid to the accountants. In addition, counsel for the defendant have been informed that NCRC obtained a settlement in excess of $500,000 in its litigation against its former attorneys. -13-

It is suggested that the defendant be required to stay within the State of Maryland during the initial period of his employment and only be permitted to travel outside the State of Maryland with the specific approval of the probation officer. While the defendant's earnings would likely be higher if he could travel, perhaps he should demonstrate his ability to perform conditions of counseling, community service, and employment specified above before being permitted to travel outside the state. Additionally, the Court may want to restrict the defendant's mobility by imposing home detention or by using a private monitoring system that would report directly to the probation officer but be paid for by the defendant. CONCLUSION It is submitted that a combination of the conditions suggested above will restrict the defendant's freedom without eliminating his ability to earn an income and to begin to pay significant debts that he owes. It permits the extent of his freedom and income-producing ability to increase as he demonstrates his commitment to the conditions of counseling and community service and to the terms of monitoring and following a precise schedule and itinerary. A goal of this plan is to make the defendant more aware of the weaknesses and faults and misplaced values that contributed to his undoing. A further objective is to prevent him from engaging in similar conduct in the future. The defendant agrees with this analysis and recommendation and has authorized undersigned counsel to speak for him. He recognizes the wisdom of listening and remaining silent at this time. On January 31, 1995, shortly before the hearing, Berringer and Steele met again. Steele advised Berringer that he had not

received the transcript from appellant's criminal trial and was not prepared to defend the amended motion for new trial.

Additionally, Steele indicated that he would not note an appeal -14-

of the criminal convictions after the hearing on January 31, 1995, because of insufficient funds. The hearing on appellant's amended motion for new trial, and sentencing, proceeded as scheduled on January 31, 1995. court rejected the "first ground" of error alleged The in

appellant's amended motion, concerning the alleged bias of a juror against Ms. Staab. THE COURT: New Trial. MR. STEELE: THE COURT: The following discussion is relevant: It's the Defense Motion for

All right.

Yeah. You may proceed.

MR. STEELE: Yes, ma'am. Your Honor, in regard to the Motion for New Trial, uhm, I, I primarily want to submit on virtually everything except the issue involving the juror; I think we can discuss. And she's in the courtroom right now. But I don't want to waive any of the points that we've made. I haven't been able to secure a transcript and I didn't think it was prudent to spend money on a transcript. Frankly, your Honor, I thought it was more prudent to, to get prepared for sentencing. And, as a consequence, we haven't, uhm, you know, read over the record. Uhm, in, on the issue regarding the, the juror, we've made some inquiries. Today was the first day we were able to talk with her. And perhaps we can state for the record what -- [PROSECUTOR]: I believe we can, your Honor. I can -- this is Denise Shipowick, the Juror No. 3 or 4. I don't recall. THE COURT: No. 3.

[PROSECUTOR]: Specifically, Defense counsel's made several allegations with regard to Miss Shipowick's knowledge of Miss Maria Staab. -15-

THE COURT:

Mm-hmm.

[PROSECUTOR]: My understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, my understanding is apparently they were neighbors or are neighbors -- MS. SHIPOWICK: [PROSECUTOR]: understanding that she had as the Court -- MS. SHIPOWICK: THE COURT: Are. -- or something. Are neighbors. But my from speak[ing] with Miss Shipowick is no knowledge of that, whatsoever. And, will recall, Miss Staab never testified

The --

Right.

[PROSECUTOR]: She had no recollection. No, she did not recognize the name or, obviously, the person of Miss Staab during the course of this trial. Apparently, it was with regard -- MS. SHIPOWICK: Juror --

[PROSECUTOR]: -- when she went after the verdict on that day, Miss Shipowick went home and, for the first time, was obviously able to discuss the case with her family. At that time, I believe her son mentioned or heard, was hearing the story, her son mentioned, oh, mom, is that the Maria Staab that lives up the street? At first Miss Shipowick thought, oh, I don't think so. Ultimately, it turns out it was a woman that she knew but, apparently, Miss Shipowick, even in light of that, had no hard feelings or whatever about Miss Staab. And, again, because it was all after the trial, I don't foresee that it had any bearing on the trial, whatsoever. Miss Shipowick can certainly correct any-, anything that I may have said. MS. SHIPOWICK: THE COURT: That's, that's accurate, your Honor. Mr. Steele?

All right.

MR. STEELE: I'm satisfied with that statement, your Honor. And I int-, interviewed the juror, also, prior -16-

to the proceedings today. THE COURT: I've read carefully the [case of Burkett v. State, 21 Md. App. 438 (1974)]. And the test where a juror would fail to respond to a voir dire inquiry is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge unless, A, actual prejudice to the accused is demonstrated or, B, withheld information in and of itself gives rise to a reasonable belief that prejudice or bias by the juror against the accused is likely. And, so, Mr. Steele, if you want to argue either or both of those points, I will certainly entertain an argument. MR. STEELE: You, your Honor, I don't believe it would be fruitful to argue the point further. I, I talked with the witness this morning. The thing I was primarily -- THE COURT: That's not --

MR. STEELE: I'm sorry. The juror the juror/witness, the thing I was primarily concerned with was that she had heard the name Staab, didn't make further inquiry, didn't raise her hand and didn't do anything about it. What she has told us today negates that. THE COURT: Okay.

MR. STEELE: So if she were to testify, I don't think I'd have a factual foundation [to] make the argument your Honor. I did feel that I had an obligation to pursue the inquiry. It had been raised by prior counsel, and, and we raised it, as well. The "second ground" for new trial concerned appellant's

entitlement to monies in excess of what he allegedly stole from NCRC. The hearing transcript reveals that Steele attempted to

proceed directly to the "third ground," without addressing the second. the Nevertheless, after reiterating the argument underlying ground, the court asked Steele if he had "any

second

-17-

additional argument."

When Steele responded in the negative, The third ground

the court denied the motion on that basis.

alleged that the court erred in excluding certain evidence and in denying appellant's motion in limine to exclude evidence of payments made to E&L in 1991. The following colloquy is

pertinent: MR. STEELE: You, your Honor, we raised issues insofar as evidentiary -THE COURT: MR. STEELE: information. THE COURT: Right. -- objections. Particularly on financial

Right.

MR. STEELE: Uhm, the Court, you know, denied the admission into evidence of those exhibits during the course of the trial. I, I've reviewed them. THE COURT: Mm-hmm.

MR. STEELE: I, I've reviewed them. You know, I would continue to say that the Court should have admitted them and that our client was prejudiced because they weren't admitted. But I think that the Court would really have to recognize or to concede that she was in error at the time that she made those, these rulings. I mean, I don't, as I said, we do not have the transcript, so I am not in a position to argue in any great detail those points. I have reviewed those exhibits, and I've reviewed the exhibits that were admitted and I think I understand the nature of why the Defendant wanted them in and why the Court ruled the way the Court did, your Honor. * * *

THE COURT: . . . [A]nything further on that other than what you've said today[?] -18-

*

*

*

MR. STEELE: . . . I don't have anything further to, to add than what, what we've said in the motion. The court rejected the third argument. After Steele

indicated that appellant had no other grounds, the court denied the new trial motion in its entirety. During elaborated memorandum. said: We have come to agreement among ourselves as things, as to the various things that he would be willing to do and that we think would be constructive for him to do in the next year or two years. First of all is counseling. I, I asked Dr. McDaniel [to] see the Defendant and evaluate him. She is willing to continue to work with him as far as the counseling is concerned. I think that the Defendant has suffered from too much optimism, too much salesmanship, a, you know, lack of a hold on, on reality. And I, and I do have some concerns that, without examining himself, and getting professional examination, evaluation and counseling that a psychiatrist could give . . . him, that he could get himself again in, you know, financial difficulties similar to what, you know, brought about this case. In advised the malpractice that he complaint, wanted the Berringer to address at alleged the that Court he at the upon sentencing the points phase of the in hearing, the Steele

addressed

sentencing

With respect to the proposed counseling, Steele

Steele

sentencing.

Nevertheless,

record

sentencing

reflects

that appellant declined to allocute. relevant:

The following exchange is

-19-

THE COURT: . . . Does Mr. Berringer wish to address the Court today by way of allocution? MR. STEELE: Your Honor, we've spoken about this and, very frankly -- and I trusted in our memo I think some, one of the things that has gotten him into difficulty is he's, talks too much. And I've . . . advised him that I think it's in his best interests not to, to speak today, but to . . . accept what we have said on his behalf. Uhm, do you agree with that? [BERRINGER]: Yes, sir. waives his right of

THE COURT: So you -- he allocution; is that correct? MR. STEELE: THE COURT: MR. STEELE: [BERRINGER]: Thereafter, misappropriation

That's correct, your Honor. Okay. You understand that? Yes. the court merged with the appellant's theft fraudulent and

conviction

conviction

sentenced Berringer to fifteen years of imprisonment, with all but three years suspended, and credit for forty-three days of time served. Appellant was to be incarcerated for the first

year of his sentence and, in accordance with Steele's proposal, he was then to be placed in home detention for two years.

During that period, appellant would be permitted to work, attend weekly religious services, and participate in counseling.

Additionally, the court ordered appellant to pay restitution of $227,191.25 to NCRC "during [appellant's] seven-year period of

-20-

probation."6 On May 1, 1995, Steele filed a motion for modification and reduction of sentence, as well as another motion for new trial, pursuant to Md. Rule 4-331(b), (c). Both motions were denied.

No appeal was filed as to the conviction or post-trial motions.

By letter dated August 18, 1995, Steele notified Berringer that appellees intended to withdraw their appearance. The

letter stated:

"I remain interested in assisting you, but at

the present time we are approximately $15,000.00 in the hole." Judge Howe granted appellees' motion. On November 15, 1995, appellant appeared before Judge Howe on a charge of violation of probation. Although somewhat

unclear from the record, it appears that the alleged violation included a series of threatening telephone calls to the Hardys. Notwithstanding Berringer's steadfast denial of any wrongdoing, the court found appellant in violation, revoked his probation, and imposed the appeal entire was fifteen-year dismissed for sentence. failure to Appellant's prosecute.

subsequent

Although unclear from the record, the circuit court appears to have relied on Md. Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol, 1999 Supp.), Art. 27,

Download Berringer v. Steele.pdf

Maryland Law