Opinion
984-2022
04-03-2023
MARQUIS DIONTE DIXON v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 120195029
Berger, Arthur, Eyler, James R. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
OPINION [*]
PER CURIAM
Convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City of manslaughter, use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence, and illegal possession of a firearm, Marquis Dionte Dixon, appellant, contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the convictions. Acknowledging that defense counsel, in moving for judgment of acquittal, "did not comply with [the] requirement" of Rule 4-324(a) "that he state with particularity all reasons why the motion . . . should be granted" (quotations omitted), Mr. Dixon requests that we review the contention on the grounds that "the argument raised in this appeal . . . was presented to the court[] by the State in an effort to refute it," "[s]trict application of the rule . . . would serve no purpose other than to punish Mr. Dixon for counsel's omission," and "fairness and interests of judicial economy justify granting relief on direct appeal." (Internal citation and quotations omitted.) We decline to do so. Although this Court has discretion to review unpreserved errors pursuant to Rule 8-131(a) ("[o]rdinarily, the appellate court will not decide any . . . issue unless it plainly appears by the record to have been raised in or decided by the trial court, but the Court may decide such an issue if necessary or desirable to guide the trial court or to avoid the expense and delay of another appeal"), the Supreme Court of Maryland (formerly known as the Court of Appeals of Maryland) has emphasized that appellate courts should "rarely exercise" that discretion, because "considerations of both fairness and judicial efficiency ordinarily require that all challenges that a party desires to make to a trial court's ruling, action, or conduct be presented in the first instance to the trial court[.]" Ray v. State, 435 Md. 1, 23 (2013) (internal citation omitted). Therefore, plain error review "is reserved for those errors that are compelling, extraordinary, exceptional[,] or fundamental to assure the defendant of a fair trial." Savoy v. State, 218 Md.App. 130, 145 (2014) (internal citation and quotations omitted). Under the circumstances presented here, we decline to overlook the lack of preservation, and do not exercise our discretion to engage in plain error review. See Morris v. State, 153 Md.App. 480, 506-07 (2003) (noting that the words "[w]e decline to do so" are "all that need be said, for the exercise of our unfettered discretion in not taking notice of plain error requires neither justification nor explanation" (emphasis and footnote omitted)).
At the November 8, 2022 general election, the voters of Maryland ratified a constitutional amendment changing the name of the Court of Appeals of Maryland to the Supreme Court of Maryland. The name change took effect on December 14, 2022. See also Rule 1-101.1(a) ("[f]rom and after December 14, 2022, any reference in these Rules or, in any proceedings before any court of the Maryland Judiciary, any reference in any statute, ordinance, or regulation applicable in Maryland to the Court of Appeals of Maryland shall be deemed to refer to the Supreme Court of Maryland").
JUDGMENTS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANT.
[*] At the November 8, 2022 general election, the voters of Maryland ratified a constitutional amendment changing the name of the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland to the Appellate Court of Maryland. The name change took effect on December 14, 2022.
[*] This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.