Richmond v. District Court
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 54 September Term, 2008 Quinton Richmond, et al. v. District Court of Maryland, et al. Bell, C.J. Harrell Battaglia Greene Murphy Adkins Barbera JJ. PER CURIAM ORDER Filed: March 5, 2010 QUIN TON RICH MON D, et al. COURT OF APPEALS * OF MARYLAND * DIST RICT COU RT O F MA RYL AND , et al. IN THE * v. * No. 54 * September Term, 2008 ************************************************************************ PER CURIAM ORDER The Appellan ts in this case have sought a declaratory judgment that they and the class of indigent persons they represent have the right to be represented by the Public Defender during an initial appearance before a District Cou rt Comm issioner. The Appellan ts have no t, however, joined th e Publi c Def ender a s a party. Under these circumstances, the Circuit Court should have dismissed the Com plaint pu rsuant to Md. R ule 2-2 11(a). Although the parties have agreed that the issues presented in this case satisfy the prerequisites of Md. Rule 2-231, the Circuit Court should not have accepted that agreement before the Public Defender had the opportunity to be heard on the issue of whether this case should be maintained as a class action, as well as on the issue of whether the Public Defender is obligated to represent an indigent defendant during his or her initial appearance before a District Court Com missioner. It is therefore, this 5 th day of March, 2010, by the Court of Appea ls of Ma ryland, a majority concurring: ORDERED that the judgment of the Circuit Court be and is hereby VACATE D; and it is further ORDE RED that this case be remanded to the Circuit Court; and it is further ORDERED that t he C ircuit Co urt, a s soo n as is rea sona bly practical, enter a conditional order of refu sal to certify this case as a class action; and it is further ORDERED that the Circuit Court enter an Order dismissing the Complaint on April 6 , 2010, un less by that date Appellan ts have joine d the Pub lic Defend er as a party in this case. Mandate to issue forthwith. /s/ Robert M . Bell Chief Judge 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
