Lindsey v. State

9 Citing cases

  1. Griffin v. Lindsey

    444 Md. 278 (Md. 2015)   Cited 38 times
    Finding crime victim lacked statutory authority to file appeal from denial of defendant's motion for reconsideration, thus making appeal untimely and depriving Court of Special Appeals of jurisdiction to review denial of restitution

    Griffin filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, which we granted to consider the following questions:Lindsey v. State, 218 Md.App. 512, 527–28, 98 A.3d 340, 349–50, cert. granted sub nom. Griffin v. Lindsey, 441 Md. 61, 105 A.3d 489 (2014).

  2. Russell v. State

    221 Md. App. 518 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2015)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that a probation authority is permitted to provide specific rules for a probationer within the ambit of a general condition imposed by the court

    Gibson v. State, 328 Md. 687 , 689, 616 A.2d 877 (1992). Lindsey v. State, 218 Md.App. 512 , 530, 98 A.3d 340 (2014).

  3. Houck v. Maryland

    Case No.: GJH-17-903 (D. Md. Nov. 27, 2019)

    Further, the court noted, "the State and the victim are separate entities with independent rights," and thus "[t]he State cannot waive or forfeit a crime victim's rights by entering into a plea agreement with a criminal defendant." Id. (citing Lindsey v. State, 98 A.3d 340, 350 (Md. App. 2014), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Griffin v. Lindsey, 119 A.3d 753 (Md. 2015)).

  4. Maryland Restorative Justice Initiative v. Hogan

    316 F.R.D. 106 (D. Md. 2016)   Cited 7 times
    Denying intervention even though proposed intervenors "refer to numerous instances in which the State has taken positions that do not coincide with those of [proposed intervenors]"

    (Quotations omitted). Individual Movants cite, e.g., Tunstall v. Shearin, DKC-13-1781, a habeas action, in which the State conceded error and agreed to a resentencing; Lindsey v. State, 218 Md.App. 512, 98 A.3d 340 (2014) (including State's opposition to a victim's claim for restitution), rev'd, Griffin v. State, 444 Md. 278, 119 A.3d 753 (2015); Lopez-Sanchez v. State, 388 Md. 214, 879 A.2d 695 (2005) (including State's opposition to victim's claim for direct appeal); and Cianos v. State, 338 Md. 406, 659 A.2d 291 (1995) (including State's opposition to appeal filed by victim representatives). See ECF 9-2 at 10, 12, 13.

  5. Griffin v. Lindsey

    441 Md. 61 (Md. 2014)

    Griffin v. Lindsey Reported below: 218 Md.App. 512, 98 A.3d 340. Disposition: Granted.

  6. Griffin v. Lindsey

    105 A.3d 489 (Md. 2014)

    Griffin v. LindseyReported below: 218 Md.App. 512, 98 A.3d 340. Disposition: Granted.

  7. Antoine v. State

    245 Md. App. 521 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2020)   Cited 7 times
    Reasoning that "[t]he statutory rights to present victim impact evidence are … meaningful only if they are afforded before a trial court formally binds itself to a particular disposition of a case"

    "[T]he leading case governing th[e] aspect of double jeopardy law" protecting against multiple punishments is United States v. DiFrancesco , 449 U.S. 117, 101 S.Ct. 426, 66 L.Ed.2d 328 (1980). SeeLindsey v. State , 218 Md. App. 512, 544, 98 A.3d 340 (2014) (applying DiFrancesco ), rev'd on other grounds sub nom.Griffin v. Lindsey , 444 Md. 278, 119 A.3d 753 (2015). DiFrancesco concerned a provision of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, which allowed the government to appeal the sentences of convicted defendants who were designated "dangerous special offender[s]."

  8. Antoine v. State

    No. 2880 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Jan. 30, 2020)

    "[T]he leading case governing th[e] aspect of double jeopardy law" protecting against multiple punishments is United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117 (1980). See Lindsey v. State, 218 Md. App. 512, 544 (2014) (applying DiFrancesco), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Griffin v. Lindsey, 444 Md. 278 (2015).

  9. Randall v. State

    No. 2273, 529 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Jan. 4, 2018)

    "Restitution, whether ordered as a condition of probation or entered as part of the judgment of conviction, is a criminal sanction that can be challenged as an illegal sentence." Lindsey v. State, 218 Md. App. 512, 539 (2014), rev'd sub nom on other grounds, Griffin v. Lindsey, 444 Md. 278 (2015). "Because restitution statutes are penal in nature, they must be strictly construed."