This Maryland Legal Glossary Index is designed to help Maryland Law Blog readers navigate complex legal terminology found in Maryland appellate court decisions.
Click on a letter below.
A
Acquiescence (Legal Acquiescence)
Definition:
The act of implicitly accepting a court ruling or legal decision by failing to object or by affirmatively agreeing to it. Under Maryland law, a party that acquiesces to a trial court’s ruling typically waives the right to challenge that ruling on appeal.
Case Reference:
In Bhairava v. State (2025), the Appellate Court of Maryland cited Green v. State, 127 Md. App. 758 (1999) to hold that a defendant who agrees to a trial date waives the right to appeal a denied postponement request.
Appellate Court of Maryland
The Appellate Court of Maryland is the intermediate appellate court in the Maryland judicial system.
Formerly known as the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland until a 2022 constitutional amendment, the Appellate Court of Maryland generally has exclusive initial appellate jurisdiction over any reviewable judgment, decree, order, or other action of a circuit court or an orphans’ court, except for cases in which a sentence of death has been imposed (which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Maryland). Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 12-308.
The Appellate Court of Maryland consists of fifteen judges, with at least one judge from each of the state’s seven appellate judicial circuits, and eight judges appointed at large. Md. Const., Art. IV, §14A.
Judges are appointed by the Governor and are subject to a retention election at the next general election occurring at least one year after their appointment, and subsequently every ten years.
Appeals are typically heard by panels of three judges.
Cases are generally decided on the record made in the lower court, with the Court reviewing for errors of law and clearly erroneous findings of fact.
Its reported decisions are binding precedent on the Circuit Courts and District Court of Maryland, but are subject to review by the Supreme Court of Maryland upon the granting of a writ of certiorari. See also Maryland Supreme Court; Certiorari; Intermediate Appellate Court.
B
C
D
E
F
Functional Equivalent Test
A Maryland legal doctrine that examines the substance over form of a criminal proceeding to determine whether it should be treated as a guilty plea regardless of what participants call it, thereby triggering all constitutional protections required for valid guilty pleas.
Legal Standard from Sutton v. State
Established in Sutton v. State, 289 Md. 359, 366 (1981), Maryland courts apply this test by examining “the totality of the circumstances” to determine whether a hearing was “the functional equivalent of a guilty plea.”
Key Factors Courts Consider
- No Real Contest of Guilt: The proceeding offers “no reasonable chance that there would be an acquittal”
- Lack of Trial Procedures: Absence of jury, witnesses, evidence presentation, or meaningful adversarial testing
- Effective Concession: The defendant, through counsel or conduct, effectively concedes guilt to the charges
- Benefit of Arrangement: The defendant appears to receive some benefit in exchange for not contesting the charges
- Stipulation to Facts: Defense agreement that prosecution’s facts are sufficient to establish guilt
Constitutional Trigger
When a proceeding meets this test, Maryland courts mandate that “the requirements of [Maryland Rule 4-242] are applicable” – meaning full plea colloquy protections must be provided.
Practical Application
As stated in Sutton: “the proceeding was not in any sense a trial and offered no reasonable chance that there would be an acquittal. Under these particular circumstances, the [defendant’s] plea was the functional equivalent of a guilty plea.”
Purpose
This doctrine prevents circumvention of constitutional protections through creative labeling or informal arrangements that effectively result in guilty pleas without proper safeguards.
Recent Application
Applied in Parker v. Scott (2025), where defense counsel’s statement that “it’s not a plea” didn’t prevent the court from finding the proceeding was functionally equivalent to a guilty plea requiring Rule 4-242(c) protections.
Key Authority:
G
H
Habeas corpus
Habeas Corpus (pronounced “HAY-bee-us COR-pus”): A fundamental legal remedy that requires the government to justify the detention of any person by bringing them before a court and demonstrating lawful authority for their imprisonment.
Etymology & Core Principle
Latin Translation: “You have the body” – commanding authorities to produce the detained person and explain their detention.
Constitutional Foundation: Protected by U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 9 (“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended”) and Maryland Constitution Article III, Section 55.
Legal Function
A post-conviction remedy that allows prisoners to challenge the legality of their detention even after direct appeals are exhausted, focusing on constitutional violations that undermine the conviction’s validity.
Maryland Authority
Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 3-701 et seq. governs habeas corpus proceedings in Maryland state courts.
Types of Habeas Corpus
Federal Habeas (28 U.S.C. § 2254): Challenges state convictions in federal court
State Habeas: Challenges filed in state court under state constitutional provisions
Original Habeas: Filed directly in appellate courts
Standard of Review
Maryland courts review habeas petitions “on both the law and the evidence” (Sabisch v. Moyer, 466 Md. 327, 349 (2019)), examining whether detention violates constitutional rights.
Common Grounds for Relief
- Ineffective assistance of counsel
- Unconstitutional guilty pleas (as in Parker v. Scott)
- Jurisdictional defects
- New evidence of innocence
- Fundamental constitutional violations
Procedural Requirements
- Exhaustion of remedies: Generally must exhaust direct appeals first
- Custody requirement: Petitioner must be “in custody” (includes parole/probation)
- Factual basis: Must allege specific constitutional violations
Historical Significance
Known as “The Great Writ” – considered the most important protection against unlawful government detention, dating back to English common law.
Limitations
- Not for ordinary trial errors
- Time limitations may apply
- Limited to constitutional violations
- Generally one petition per conviction
Key Authority:
I
J
K
L
M
Maryland Supreme Court
The highest court in the Maryland judicial system and the court of last resort in the state.
Formerly known as the Court of Appeals of Maryland until a 2022 constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court of Maryland consists of seven justices, one from each of the state’s seven appellate judicial circuits.
Justices are appointed by the governor and are subject to a retention election at the next general election occurring at least one year after their appointment, and subsequently every ten years.
- The Maryland Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals in cases where a sentence of death has been imposed. Md. Const., Art. IV, § 14.
- The Court has discretionary appellate jurisdiction, primarily exercised through the granting of writs of certiorari, to review decisions of the Appellate Court of Maryland, and in limited circumstances, directly from the Circuit Courts. Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. §§ 12-201, 12-305.
- The Court also has original jurisdiction over certain matters, including legislative redistricting and attorney discipline.
- The Supreme Court of Maryland is responsible for promulgating rules of practice and procedure for the Maryland courts. Its reported decisions are binding precedent on all other Maryland courts.
N
O
P
Per Curium Decision
A per curium judicial opinion issued in the name of the court as a whole rather than authored or signed by an individual Maryland appellate judge.
[Latin “by the court”]
In Maryland appellate practice, as in other jurisdictions, per curiam opinions typically address issues that are either well-settled by precedent or unanimously agreed upon by the panel or court, making individual authorship unnecessary. These decisions often (though not always) tend to be shorter and more straightforward than signed opinions.
A key characteristic of per curiam decisions in Maryland practice is that they carry the same precedential weight as authored opinions when published as reported decisions.
However, when issued as unreported decisions under Maryland Rule 1-104, they serve only as persuasive authority and cannot be cited as precedent except in related cases.
Plea Colloquy
Plea Colloquy (pronounced “KOLL-uh-kwee”): A mandatory judicial procedure in which a judge personally questions a criminal defendant on the record to ensure that any guilty plea is made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.
Core Components
A proper plea colloquy requires the judge to personally confirm that the defendant understands:
Nature of the Charges: What specific crimes they’re being accused of and what the prosecution must prove
Maximum Penalties: The potential sentence they face, including prison time, fines, and other consequences
Rights Being Waived: Specifically that they’re giving up:
- Right to jury trial
- Right to confront witnesses
- Right against self-incrimination
- Right to require the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
Plea Voluntariness: That no one has threatened or coerced them into pleading guilty
Factual Basis: That there’s evidence supporting the charges (often through the defendant admitting the facts)
Legal Authority
In Maryland, plea colloquy requirements are governed by Maryland Rule 4-242(c), which mandates these protections. Similar rules exist in federal court (Federal Rule 11) and in other state jurisdictions.
Constitutional Foundation
The plea colloquy requirement stems from Supreme Court cases like Boykin v. Alabama (1969), which held that waiving fundamental constitutional rights requires an affirmative showing that the waiver was knowing and voluntary.
Consequences of Inadequate Colloquy
If a plea colloquy is inadequate or missing entirely:
- The guilty plea can be withdrawn or set aside
- Convictions can be overturned on appeal
- Habeas corpus petitions may succeed (as in Parker’s case)
Why It Matters
The plea colloquy serves as a crucial protection against defendants accidentally giving up fundamental rights due to confusion, pressure, or inadequate legal advice. It ensures that the most important legal decisions are made with full understanding of the consequences.
Key Point: The judge must personally address the defendant—having defense counsel speak for the client is insufficient to satisfy plea colloquy requirements.