Seward v. State
130 A.3d 478
Md.2016Background
- In 1984 Phyllis Diacont was raped, robbed, and shot; she later identified George Seward as her attacker. Seward was convicted in 1985 and sentenced to life plus additional years.
- In 1996–97 Seward’s counsel obtained employment records from Louise Stamathis showing Seward worked at a dog grooming shop during the time of the crime; Stamathis later testified the records made it impossible Seward could have left to commit the crime.
- Seward filed a petition for writ of actual innocence under CP § 8-301 (enacted 2009) in 2010, asserting newly discovered evidence that created a substantial possibility the verdict would differ. The Circuit Court granted a new trial in 2012.
- The State appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, which reversed the grant of a new trial on the merits and held the State could appeal. Seward sought certiorari.
- The Court of Appeals considered whether the State has a statutory right to directly appeal a circuit court order granting a petition for writ of actual innocence under CJP § 12-301.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State may directly appeal a circuit court order granting a writ of actual innocence under CJP § 12-301 | Seward: Granting a writ and ordering a new trial is interlocutory, not a final judgment, so CJP § 12-301 does not authorize the State’s direct appeal | State: Douglas v. State held CP § 8-301 cases fall within CJP § 12-301 and the State may appeal because Douglas treated denials as final; legislative history suggests appeal rights were intended to be provided via CJP § 12-301 | The Court held the order granting a new trial is interlocutory (not a final judgment); the State has no right to directly appeal that order under CJP § 12-301 |
Key Cases Cited
- Douglas v. State, 423 Md. 156 (Md. 2011) (held denial of a petition for writ of actual innocence is a final judgment under CJP § 12-301)
- Snyder v. Cearfoss, 186 Md. 360 (Md. 1946) (order granting a new trial leaves the cause as if no previous trial occurred and is not a final judgment)
- Dean v. State, 302 Md. 493 (Md. 1985) (order granting a new trial is not an appealable final order)
- Schuele v. Case Handyman & Remodeling Servs., LLC, 412 Md. 555 (Md. 2010) (an order that keeps parties in court to litigate remaining claims is not final)
- Pack Shack, Inc. v. Howard County, 371 Md. 243 (Md. 2002) (the right of appeal in Maryland is entirely statutory)