Mobuary v. State, 78 A.3d 399

Mobuary was convicted in the District Court of Maryland, sitting in Baltimore City, of two counts of second-degree assault and sentenced to three years in each case with all but time served suspended, placed on probation, and appealed to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.
He was incarcerated at the Baltimore City Detention Center and did not appear for his December 21, 2010 appeals hearing after the circuit court dismissed the appeals based on a prosecutor's statement that a corrections officer said Mobuary refused transport.
Defense counsel initially confirmed the information but later advised the court Mobuary did not refuse transport and wished to pursue the appeals; a continuance was denied.
The petitioner filed a Motion to Reinstate Appeal the following day, attaching his account that he did not refuse transport, and a handwritten letter to the court further explaining the situation; the court denied the motion.
The State argued the court properly dismissed under Rule 7-112(f)(1) and that the motion to reinstate was improper under Rule 7-112(f)(3) and argued about jurisdiction and the timing of certiorari.
The Maryland Court of Appeals vacated the circuit court’s judgment, remanded for consideration of good cause under Rule 7-112(f)(3), and remanded with costs to the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal based on secondhand, unidentified correctional officer information was proper	Mobuary	State	Dismissal was improper; information was unreliable and insufficient to support dismissal
Whether denial of the Motion to Reinstate Appeal was an abuse of discretion	Mobuary	State	Abuse of discretion; good cause shown; remand to determine reinstatement on merits
Whether the court misapplied the applicable Rule for reinstatement	Mobuary	State	Correct standard is Rule 7-112(f)(3); misapplied Rule 4-345; remand for proper analysis

Stone v. State, 344 Md. 97 (Md. 1996) (informational reliability and right to be present at de novo trial)
Pinkney v. State, 350 Md. 201 (Md. 1998) (waiver of right to be present requires knowing, voluntary absence; avoid silent-record presumption)
Pollard v. State, 339 Md. 233 (Md. 1995) (liberal construction of good cause for reinstatement)
Chaney v. State, 375 Md. 168 (Md. 2003) (presumption of trial-court correctness may be rebutted; focus on whether law was correctly applied)
Thornton v. State, 397 Md. 704 (Md. 2007) (misstatement of law requires reversal; analyzing judge's reasoning for abuse of discretion)
Hughes v. State, 288 Md. 216 (Md. 1980) (recognition of the right to be present at trial)
Stone v. State, 344 Md. 97 (Md. 1996) (two-tier system; de novo appeals; dismissal consequences differ from criminal trials)
Goodman v. Commercial Credit Corp., 364 Md. 483 (Md. 2001) (abuse of discretion standard for trial court decisions)