Circuit Court for Allegany County

Case No. 01-C-12-036780

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF MARYLAND

Petition No. 293

September Term, 2023

 

WAYNE RESPER

v.

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF 

PUBLIC SAFETY AND 

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

 

Fader, C.J.,

Watts,

Hotten,

Booth,

 Biran, 

Gould, 

Eaves, 

JJ.

PER CURIAM ORDER

Filed: March 25, 2024
O R D E R

In the Circuit Court for Allegany County, the petitioner, Wayne Resper, filed a 

motion to set aside a prior order that required him to seek leave of court before filing new 

papers. When that motion was denied in an order dated September 23, 2023, Mr. Resper 

simultaneously filed documents titled “Notice of Appeal” and “Application for Leave to 

Appeal.” Both documents were directed toward the circuit court’s September 23, 2023 

order. Because the petition could proceed only pursuant to an application for leave to 

appeal in this action, this Court will address the combined filing as an application for leave 

to appeal.

The circuit court then entered an order, dated November 3, 2023, in which the court: 

(1) noted Mr. Resper’s filing; (2) stated that Mr. Resper, having been found to be a 

frivolous filer pursuant to § 5-1005(a) of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article, was 

not permitted to “file any further civil actions without leave of court” (quoting Md. Code 

WAYNE RESPER 

v.

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF 

PUBLIC SAFETY AND 

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

 IN THE

 SUPREME COURT 

 OF MARYLAND

 Petition No. 293

 September Term, 2023

 (No. 1732, Sept. Term, 2023

 Appellate Court of Maryland)

 (Cir. Ct. No. 01-C-12-036780) 
2

Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-1005(c)(1)); and (3) stated that the court “declines to grant 

leave in this action.” 

The Appellate Court treated the circuit court’s November 3 order as effectively 

striking the petitioner’s application for leave to appeal. Accordingly, the Clerk of the 

Appellate Court issued an order administratively closing the case. Mr. Resper then sought 

review in this Court pursuant to a petition for writ of certiorari.

After initial consideration of the petition, the Court requested that the Department 

of Public Safety and Correctional Services respond to the following question: “Whether 

the Court should issue a writ of certiorari on the question of whether Md. Code Ann., Cts. 

& Jud. Proc. § 5-1005 applies to notices of appeal.” The Department submitted a 

response in which its primary argument was that this Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain 

the petition. The Department argued that this Court should consider the Appellate Court’s 

action as a denial of an application for leave to appeal, which is not subject to further review

in this Court. See Mahai v. State, 474 Md. 648 (2021). However, the Appellate Court 

did not consider Mr. Resper’s application for leave to appeal at all, much less exercise its 

discretion to deny the application. Instead, the Appellate Court administratively closed 

the case based on the circuit court’s order declining to grant leave to appeal. 

In footnote 4 of the Department’s answer to the petition, the Department 

acknowledged that the circuit court lacked the authority to deny Mr. Resper’s filing “on 

the purported § 5-1005 grounds or otherwise.” The Department explained:

[T]he appellate court has the power to deny an application for leave to 
3

appeal under Rule 8-204. Even if treated as a notice of appeal, Rule 

8-203 grants power to the circuit court to strike notices of appeal for four 

reasons that are procedural or ministerial in nature. A circuit court is 

not permitted “to preclude review of its own decision by striking an 

appeal because it believes . . . that the appellant is not entitled to take the 

appeal, or for any other reason . . . other than the four articulated in Rule 

8-203[.]” County Comm’rs of Carroll County v. Carroll Craft Retail, 

Inc., 384 Md. 23, 42 (2005). In all other cases, “it is the appellate court 

that must order the dismissal.” Id. None of the reasons enumerated in 

Rule 8-203 were invoked here.

This Court agrees that the circuit court lacked the authority to deny or strike

Mr. Resper’s application for leave to appeal pursuant to § 5-1005 of the Courts & Judicial 

Proceedings Article.

Accordingly, upon consideration of the petition and the response, it is this 25th day 

of March 2024, by the Supreme Court of Maryland, 

ORDERED that the petition is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that the order of the Appellate Court of Maryland administratively 

closing the appeal record is vacated; and it is further

ORDERED that this case is remanded to the Appellate Court with instructions to 

vacate the circuit court’s November 3, 2023 order and direct the circuit court to transmit 

the record on appeal. Thereafter, the Appellate Court can address Mr. Resper’s 

application for leave to appeal in the ordinary course.

 

 /s/ Matthew J. Fader 

 Chief Justice