Quinton RICHMOND, et al.
v.
DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND, et al.
No. 54 September Term, 2008.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
March 5, 2010.BEFORE: BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, MURPHY, ADKINS and BARBERA, JJ.
PER CURIAM ORDER.
The Appellants in this case have sought a declaratory judgment that they and the class of indigent persons they represent have the right to be represented by the Public Defender during an initial appearance before a District Court Commissioner. The Appellants have not, however, joined the Public Defender as a party. Under these circumstances, the Circuit Court should have dismissed the Complaint pursuant to Md. Rule 2-211(a). Although the parties have agreed that the issues presented in this case satisfy the prerequisites of Md. Rule 2-231, the Circuit Court should not have accepted that agreement before the Public Defender had the opportunity to be heard on the issue of whether this case should be maintained as a class action, as well as on the issue of whether the Public Defender is obligated to represent an indigent defendant during his or her initial appearance before a District Court Commissioner. It is therefore, this 5th day of March, 2010, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, a majority concurring:
ORDERED that the judgment of the Circuit Court be and is hereby VACATED; and it is further
ORDERED that this case be remanded to the Circuit Court; and it is further
ORDERED that the Circuit Court, as soon as is reasonably practical, enter a conditional order of refusal to certify this case as a class action; and it is further
ORDERED that the Circuit Court enter an Order dismissing the Complaint on April 6, 2010, unless by that date Appellants have joined the Public Defender as a party in this case. Mandate to issue forthwith.