circuit court had “inherent power” to appoint counsel to represent a child in a delinquency proceeding
How later courts described this case
- circuit court had “inherent power” to appoint counsel to represent a child in a delinquency proceeding
- “In a juvenile delinquency matter . . . the [juvenile] court’s ultimate decision, however, will not be disturbed unless ‘there has been a clear abuse of discretion.’”
- “A judge must, of course, have the ability to control his or her courtroom, to assure that judicial proceedings are conducted fairly, efficiently, and with dignity and decorum.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BELL, C.J., concurring in judgment only which GREENE and ELDRIDGE, JJ., join.
Among the rulings by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County at issue in this case is the correctness of its order that it be “paneled,” by the Office of the Public Defender, to outside counsel. The majority, despite endorsing the court’s decision to order removal of post-delinquency counsel, holds that order to be error. For the reasons detailed in Office of the Public Defender v. State, 413 Md. 411, 437-474 , 993 A.2d 55, 71-94 (2010) (Bell, C.J. Dissenting and Concurring) and Workman v. State, 413 Md. 475, 490-491 , 993 A.2d 94, 103 (2010) (Bell, C.J. Concurring), I agree with that holding, as do Judges Greene and Eldridge, and, therefore, for the reasons therein stated, we join in the Court’s judgment only.