Rosales v. State, 206 A.3d 916

Victim Hector Hernandez-Melendez (ex‑MS‑13 member) was stabbed in a 2012 attack; he identified Wilfredo Rosales as an instigator and testified at Rosales’s 2013 trial.
Hernandez‑Melendez had 2011 federal VICAR convictions (conspiracy to commit assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering; threatening to commit a crime of violence in aid of racketeering).
Defense sought to impeach Hernandez‑Melendez with those VICAR convictions under Md. Rule 5‑609; trial court excluded them as non‑impeachable violent crimes.
Jury convicted Rosales of retaliation against a witness and participation in a criminal gang; Rosales was sentenced to lengthy imprisonment.
Rosales’s initial appeal process involved an untimely notice, a postconviction consent order allowing a belated appeal, and appellate briefing; the State later challenged appellate jurisdiction based on Md. Rule 8‑202 timing and postconviction procedure.

Issue	Rosales’ Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether VICAR convictions are admissible under Md. Rule 5‑609 as crimes relevant to credibility	VICAR convictions show membership in furtive, deceitful racketeering enterprises and thus are impeaching (like narcotics distribution in Giddens)	VICAR convictions are simply violent acts or heterogeneous RICO predicates and do not necessarily bear on honesty/veracity	VICAR convictions are admissible as impeaching under Md. R. 5‑609; trial court erred excluding them, but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether this Court has jurisdiction despite an untimely notice of appeal and a defective postconviction consent order	Rosales relied on postconviction consent and waiver by the State; appellate review should proceed on the merits	State argued lack of jurisdiction due to Rule 8‑202 timing and absence of required postconviction findings/order	Rule 8‑202’s 30‑day requirement is a claim‑processing rule (not jurisdictional); given waiver/forfeiture and the unique record, Court reached the merits and declined to dismiss

State v. Giddens, 335 Md. 205 (1994) (established test distinguishing crimes that inherently bear on credibility from ordinary crimes)
Houghton v. County Com’rs of Kent Cty., 305 Md. 407 (1986) (earlier Maryland precedent treating the 30‑day appeal rule as jurisdictional)
Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 138 S. Ct. 13 (2017) (Supreme Court: time limits in court rules are claim‑processing, not jurisdictional, unless statute says otherwise)
Dorsey v. State, 276 Md. 638 (1976) (harmless‑error standard in criminal cases)
Cure v. State, 421 Md. 300 (2011) (Md. R. 5‑609 framework and initial classification step)