# State v. Hardy

> Court of Appeals of Maryland · August 27, 2010 · 415 Md. 612

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9773841

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Maryland v. Wilbert HARDY
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** August 27, 2010
- **Citations:** 415 Md. 612; 4 A.3d 908; 2010 Md. LEXIS 346
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Adkins
- **Judges:** Adkins, Harrell
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9773841

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that, for purposes of claims under Maryland Rule 4-215, “meaningful trial proceedings” began with the voir dire process in a criminal trial

## Opinion text

ADKINS, J.,
Concurring and Dissenting.
I agree with the majority that there should be a bright-line test, and that the commencement of voir dire is the appropriate demarcation for the commencement of “meaningful trial proceedings” in a jury trial. Thus, I join Part IV, A and B, of the Majority opinion. I respectfully dissent, however, from the balance of the Majority opinion for the reasons set forth in Section III of the Dissent of Chief Judge Bell, which I join. I agree with him that even without the dictates of Rule 4-215, the trial court failed to make a proper inquiry about Hardy’s claim that his counsel was inadequate. See State v. Brown, 342 Md. 404 , 676 A.2d 513 (1996).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9773841. Public record. Not legal advice.