Fooks v. State ( 2023 )

Circuit Court for Wicomico County
Case No. C-22-CR-21-000030
Argued: March 2, 2023 IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF MARYLAND*
No. 24
September Term, 2022
__________________________________
ROBERT L. FOOKS
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND
__________________________________
Fader, C.J.,
Watts,
Hotten,
Booth,
Biran,
Gould,
Eaves,
JJ.
__________________________________
Per Curiam Order
Gould, J., dissents.
__________________________________
Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Filed: August 15, 2023
Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this
document is authentic.
2023-08-15 09:46-04:00
Gregory Hilton, Clerk
*During the November 8, 2022 general election, the voters of Maryland ratified a
constitutional amendment changing the name of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court
of Maryland. The name change took effect on December 14, 2022.
*
IN THE
*
ROBERT L. FOOKS SUPREME COURT
*
v. OF MARYLAND
*
STATE OF MARYLAND No. 24
*
September Term, 2022
*
ORDER
Upon consideration of the State’s unopposed motion to stay this case pending
a decision by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Rahimi, Docket
No. 22-915, October Term, 2023, it is this 15th day of August 2023, by the Supreme
Court of Maryland, a majority of the Court concurring,
ORDERED that the motion is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that, pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in
United States v. Rahimi, Docket No. 22-915, October Term, 2023, this case is stayed.
Upon a final disposition by the United States Supreme Court in Rahimi, the parties
shall promptly notify the Clerk and propose a schedule for supplemental briefing.
/s/ Matthew J. Fader
Chief Justice
Circuit Court for Wicomico County
Case No. C-22-CR-21-000030
Argued: March 2, 2023 IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF MARYLAND*
No. 24
September Term, 2022
ROBERT L. FOOKS
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND
Fader, C.J.,
Watts,
Hotten,
Booth,
Biran,
Gould,
Eaves,
JJ.
Dissenting Opinion by Gould, J.
Filed: August 15, 2023
*During the November 8, 2022 general election, the voters of Maryland ratified a
constitutional amendment changing the name of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court
of Maryland. The name change took effect on December 14, 2022.
Respectfully, I dissent from the Court’s Order staying this case pending the Supreme
Court of the United States’ disposition of United States v. Rahimi, No. 22-915, 2023 WL
4278450 (U.S. Jun. 30, 2023).
The State filed an Unopposed Motion to Stay this case pending the outcome of
Rahimi, arguing that:
[T]he U.S. Supreme Court undoubtedly will clarify the scope of the Second
Amendment—particularly whether restrictions on the possession of firearms
by non-felons are constitutional—and will offer further guidance on how to
apply the new standard for assessing Second Amendment claims enunciated
in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111
(2022). Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court likely will address some of
same [sic] historical sources and arguments that the parties have discussed in
Fooks. In sum, the U.S. Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision in Rahimi
will surely overlap with the issues and arguments currently before this Court
in Fooks.
Resp’t’s Unopp’d Mot. to Stay 2.
In my view, the State has not offered a sufficient reason to stay this case. First, the
issue in Rahimi is fundamentally different than the one presented here. In Rahimi, the
Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the following question: “Whether 18 U.S.C.
922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-
violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.” There, the statute
at issue is a federal statute; the statute at issue here is a Maryland statute. That difference
alone warrants a different constitutional analysis under the system of federalism established
in the United States Constitution.
Moreover, even if the Supreme Court’s analysis in Rahimi could be helpful, so
what? This Court grants certiorari when it is “desirable and in the public interest.” Md.
Code Ann. (1974, 2020 Repl. Vol.), Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 12-203. We did so here. Our job,
therefore, is to decide this case by applying the governing principles of law as they now
exist. As Chief Judge Bell put it when dissenting from the dismissal of a writ of certiorari
as improvidently granted:
The Court of Appeals has a responsibility to decide any case properly
presented that meets the threshold criteria: presenting issues that it is
desirable and in the public interest to decide. That responsibility, as to any
issue, may be triggered by such considerations as novelty, complexity,
conflicting precedents, impact or importance and the breadth or extent
thereof and likelihood of recurrence.
Koenig v. State, 368 Md. 150, 151 (2002) (Bell, C.J., dissenting).
The case has been fully briefed and argued, and is awaiting this Court’s decision.
There’s no need or compelling reason to wait for the Supreme Court’s decision in Rahimi.
And in doing so, we are passing on the opportunity to weigh in on an issue of significant
local and national importance, which is unfortunate, to say the least.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
2