Love v. State
| Decision Date | 20 August 1993 |
| Citation | 628 A.2d 1067,331 Md. 480 |
| Parties | Love (Daniel Harlin) v. State NO. 186 |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Reported below: 95 Md.App. 420, 621 A.2d 910.
denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
10 cases
-
Hunt v. State
...... at 605, 709 A.2d at 1203. The Court of Special Appeals has elaborated further as to what due diligence requires. In Love v. State , 95 Md. App. 420, 621 A.2d 910, cert. denied , 252 A.3d 958 331 Md. 480, 628 A.2d 1067 (1993), the Court declared that although "the exercise of diligence and the effective assistance of counsel unquestionably overlap, they are not necessarily coterminous." Id. at 436, 621 A.2d at ......
-
Jackson v. State
...... (a) Within Ten Days of Verdict. On motion of the defendant filed within ten days after a verdict, the court, in the interest of justice, may order a new trial. . In Love v. State, 95 Md.App. 420, 426-28, 621 A.2d 910, cert. denied, 331 Md. 480, 628 A.2d 1067 (1993), this Court discussed the significance and the binding nature of that 10-day time limitation. . The Motion for New Trial in a criminal case, recognized by Md. Ann.Code art. 27, § 594 (1992), is ......
-
Ramirez v. State
....... a decision based on evidence adduced at trial cannot be one arresting judgment. (Emphasis supplied). . Appellant did not explain at the motion hearing, and omits any mention now, of how the alleged error he complained of appeared on the "face of the record." As we said in Love v. State, 95 Md.App. 420, 423, 621 A.2d 910, cert. denied, 331 Md. 480, 628 A.2d 1067 (1993): . Every conceivable wrong occurring in the course of a criminal trial does not necessarily give rise to a corresponding remedy. A fortiori, it does not always trigger the particular ......
-
State v. Seward
......Stamathis. In sum, trial counsel made no reasonable and good faith effort to procure Ms. Stamathis's payroll records. The records, 220 Md.App. 26 therefore, do not qualify as “newly discovered evidence.” Id. at 600–01 & n. 9, 709 A.2d 1194 ; Love v. State, 95 Md.App. 420, 430, 621 A.2d 910, cert. denied, 331 Md. 480, 628 A.2d 1067 (1993). Nor do we agree with the assertion of the court below that the only option available to trial counsel was a search warrant. There is no reason trial counsel could not have requested a subpoena duces ......
Request a trial to view additional results