No. 20-272

Maryland, et al. v. Jimmie Rogers

Lower Court: Maryland
Docketed: 2020-09-02
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: constitutional-interpretation criminal-procedure due-process fourteenth-amendment sentencing sex-offender-registration sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
DueProcess FifthAmendment HabeasCorpus Punishment
Latest Conference: 2021-01-08
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did the Court of Appeals of Maryland depart from this Court's decisions in Smith v. Doe and Apprendi v. New Jersey

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Did the Court of Appeals of Maryland depart from this Court’s decisions in Smith v. Doe and Apprendi v. New Jersey in holding, contrary to the decisions of numerous federal courts of appeals and state supreme courts, that sex offender registration constitutes “punishment” within the meaning of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and that, as a result, any fact necessary for placement on the sex offender registry, such as the victim’s age, must be determined beyond a reasonable doubt during the criminal proceeding, even if that fact is not an element of the criminal offense that is the basis for registration?

Docket Entries

2021-01-11
Petition DENIED.
2020-12-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
2020-12-15
Waiver of right of respondent Jimmie Rogers to respond filed.
2020-09-28
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 1, 2020.
2020-09-25
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 2, 2020 to December 1, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-08-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 2, 2020)

Attorneys

Jimmie Rogers
Nancy Susanne ForsterForster & LeCompte, Respondent
Nancy Susanne ForsterForster & LeCompte, Respondent