Massey v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Schneider v. Schneider

    335 Md. 500 (Md. 1994)   Cited 18 times
    Noting Maryland's public policy "favoring the enforcement of agreements for spousal support"

    The direct sanction for perjury is prosecution as a criminal offense. Md. Code (1957, 1992 Repl. Vol.), Art. 27, § 435. By Chapter 371 of the Acts of 1991, Art. 27, § 439 was amended to make perjury punishable by imprisonment in the jail "or penitentiary." Uncodified § 2 of Ch. 371 provides 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)." Whether Janet — and Mark — should be prosecuted is a matter committed to the discretion of the State's Attorney for Frederick County.

  2. 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.