Case Title: Richmond v. District Court

Citation: 412 Md. 672

Docket Number: 54pc/08

State: maryland

Court: Maryland Supreme Court

Date: 2010-03-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
 
                    No. 54
                September Term, 2008
                                                                                    
Quinton Richmond, et al.
  v.
 District Court of Maryland, et al.
                                                                                     
  
Bell, C.J.
Harrell 
Battaglia 
Greene   
Murphy 
Adkins 
Barbera 
JJ.
                                                                                         
PER CURIAM ORDER
                                                                                          
Filed: March 5, 2010
QUINTON RICHMOND, et al.
*
IN THE 
*   
COURT OF APPEALS
v.
*  
OF MARYLAND
*   
No. 54
DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND, 
*
September Term, 2008
et al.
************************************************************************
PER CURIAM ORDER
The Appellants in this case have sought a declaratory judgment that they and the class
of indigent persons they represent have the right to be represented by the Public Defender
during an initial appearance before a District Court Commissioner.  The Appellants have not,
however, joined the Public Defender as a party.  Under these circumstances, the Circuit Court
should have dismissed the Complaint pursuant to Md. Rule 2-211(a).  Although the parties
have agreed that the issues presented in this case satisfy the prerequisites of Md. Rule 2-231,
the Circuit Court should not have accepted that agreement before the Public Defender had
the opportunity to be heard on the issue of whether this case should be maintained as a class
action, as well as on the issue of whether the Public Defender is obligated to represent an
indigent defendant during his or her initial appearance before a District Court Commissioner.
It is therefore, this 5th day of March, 2010, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, a majority
concurring:
ORDERED that the judgment of the Circuit Court be and is hereby VACATED; and
 it is further 
ORDERED that this case be remanded to the Circuit Court; and it is further 
ORDERED that the Circuit Court, as soon as is reasonably practical, enter a
conditional order of refusal to certify this case as a class action; and it is further 
ORDERED that the Circuit Court enter an Order dismissing the Complaint on      
April 6, 2010, unless by that date Appellants have joined the Public Defender as a party in
this case.  Mandate to issue forthwith.
/s/ Robert M. Bell
                      Chief Judge 
          2