Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Massey v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. State v. Parker

    334 Md. 576 (Md. 1994)   Cited 84 times
    Concluding that court-ordered cancellation of an unenforceable plea agreement was not a "practical and fair solution," given that it would not "return the parties to their original positions because [the defendant] ha[d] already provided information, testified, and served eleven years of his sentence"; ordering trial court to let defendant chose between leaving guilty plea in place or withdrawing it, with the consequences attendant to each choice

    Md. Code (1957, 1992 Repl. Vol.), Art. 27, § 690(b). For an excellent exposition of the history of this provision, see Massey v. State, 320 Md. 605, 612-18, 579 A.2d 265, 268-71 (1990). It is clear from this language that the sentencing judge had no authority to designate the institution in which Parker would serve his sentence, particularly when the desired institution falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government, an independent, co-equal sovereign.

  2. State v. Runkles

    326 Md. 384 (Md. 1992)   Cited 5 times
    Summarizing legislative history of statute

    But § 2 of the chapter provided that there is no statute of limitations for a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, notwithstanding any holding or dictum to the contrary in Massey v. State, 320 Md. 605, 579 A.2d 265 (1990). Ch. 371 amended Maryland Code (1974, 1989 Repl. Vol.) § 5-106(b) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article to provide: