STATE OF MARYLAND v. BASHUNN CHRISTOPHER PHILLIPS
Court of Appeals of Maryland, Wilner, Feb. 20, 2018,
In Banc Appeal – Maryland’s Constitution only allows an in banc appeal to a 3-judge circuit-court panel if that appeal could also have been taken to the Court of Appeals or Court of Special Appeals.

Affirming COSA opinion

“To be faithful to the standards for interpreting Constitutional provisions, however, we will need to review in some detail the origin and development of § 22 and some of our prior case law even though, regrettably, that lengthens the Opinion.”

And, as it was written, so it was done. It’s a pretty interesting article and highlights some of the “fun” involved in constitutional interpretation (even after the 18th-century). Still, not a whole lot to recommend the practice in there.

Facts:
In 2014, Phillips was charged with murder in Anne Arundel County.
Prior to trial, Phillips moved to suppress some of the evidence to be used against him.
When Phillips won parts of the motion to suppress, the State requested an “in banc appeal.” However, the State did not explain what precisely it was appealing for another month.
The “in banc” panel reversed the trial judge’s decision, finding that the evidence was improperly suppressed.
Phillips then appealed, arguing that the State was not entitled to “in banc” review in the first place. The State, meanwhile, argued that Phillips was not allowed to appeal the result of the “in banc” review until after he was convicted.

Held: The Court of Appeals held that “in banc” review was improper because a full appeal couldn’t be filed, that “in banc” review was improper because the State failed to properly reserve its points, and that Phillips could appeal the improper “in banc” panel.