Opinion ID: 2049440
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Partial Dismissal of Appeal in the Court of Special Appeals

Text: The Court of Special Appeals held that Petitioner waived his right to challenge the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss because it determined that his brief in that court did not comply with Maryland Rule 8-504(a)(4)-(5), which provides that an appellate brief shall contain [a] clear and concise statement of facts material to the determination of the questions presented. . . and an [a]rgument in support of the party's position. The intermediate appellate court found Diallo's brief lacking for at least two reasons. First, the court held that the brief did not set forth a sufficient argument regarding the denial of the motion to dismiss in that it [came] quite close in conceding that the trial court could not `avoid' error and, consequently, did not err in denying appellant's motion to dismiss.. . . 186 Md.App. at 33-34, 972 A.2d at 923-24 (emphasis in original). Second, the court found that Petitioner did not marshal any authority in support of his argument, pertinent to a trial court's obligations in ruling upon a motion to dismiss. Instead, [Diallo] appears to bootstrap his challenge to the denial of the motion to dismiss to his argument that the prosecution suppressed evidence, in violation of Brady v. Maryland. . . . Id. at 34, 972 A.2d at 924. The court observed also that [Diallo] has failed to explain or refer to substantial portions of the record relevant to his argument to the trial court and the basis for the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss, which [the court determined] are critical to determining the merits of [Diallo's] challenge to the trial court's ruling on appeal. Id. Accordingly, the court concluded that Diallo waived the issue and dismissed his appeal as to the denial of the motion. Id. Nonetheless, the appellate opinion thereafter engaged in a lengthy discussion as to why Diallo's substantive argument grounded on diplomatic immunity lacked merit. [A]rguments not presented in a brief or not presented with particularity will not be considered on appeal. Klauenberg v. State, 355 Md. 528, 552, 735 A.2d 1061, 1074 (1999) (citing Broadcast Equities, Inc. v. Montgomery County, 123 Md.App. 363, 390, 718 A.2d 648, 661 (1998)). An appellate court may dismiss an appeal for a party's failure to comply with the Rule. Md. Rule 8-504(c). The intermediate appellate court found Diallo's argument lacking particularity because it made one internal cross-reference to a separate portion of the argument section in which he made his Brady claims. The two separate arguments were based on the same assertion, that he was entitled to diplomatic immunity and that the trial court erred in finding to the contrary. Although we are not entirely unsympathetic to our appellate colleagues' views as to Petitioner's written advocacy before them ( see infra notes 8 and 10, for example), we conclude that the brief below was sufficient to identify facts and legal authority upon which he based his argument in his brief in that court. We thus hold that he did not waive his diplomatic immunity argument. We agree completely, however, with the intermediate appellate court's alternative conclusion that his substantive argument is without merit.