stating that DPSCS is “an agency of the State” for violations of a plaintiff's constitutional rights
How later courts described this case
- stating that DPSCS is “an agency of the State” for violations of a plaintiff's constitutional rights
- stating that DPSCS is “an agency of the State”
- “I did not join the reasoning . . . of the plurality of the judges in . . . Doe I . . . . I concur in the judgment of [this] Court’s opinion in the present case, assuming that Doe I was decided correctly. It is, after all, the law of Maryland.”
- reviewing circuit court's order for declaratory judgment under a de novo standard of review
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HARRELL, J.,
concurring.
I did not join the reasoning (the unconstitutionality of the Maryland statute) of the plurality of the judges in Doe v. Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services, 430 Md. 535 , 62 A.3d 123 (2013) (“Doe I ”). Rather, I concurred based on a view that Doe was entitled to specific performance of the terms of his guilty plea. Doe, 430 Md. at 569 , 62 A.3d at 143 . I rejected the plurality’s constitutionality analysis. Id.
That having been noted, I concur in the judgment of the Court’s opinion in the present case, assuming that Doe I was decided correctly. It is, after all, the law of Maryland.