Caviness v. State
| Decision Date | 07 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 514,514 |
| Citation | 244 Md. 575,224 A.2d 417 |
| Parties | Daniel Garland CAVINESS v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
William H. Kable, Baltimore, for appellant.
Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Carville M. Downes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles E. Moylan, Jr., Frank A. DeCosta, Jr., State's Atty., and Asst. State's Atty., for Baltimore City, Baltimore, for appellee.
Before HAMMOND, C.J., and HORNEY, MARBURY, BARNES and McWILLIAMS, JJ MARBURY, Judge.
Daniel Garland Gaviness, appellant, was tried in the Criminal Court of Baltimore before Judge Shirley B. Jones, sitting without a jury, and was convicted on the first count of indictment 4508 charging him with breaking and entering a warehouse with intent to steal goods of the value of $100 or more therefrom and also on indictment 4507 charging him with resisting arrest. He was sentenced to the Maryland Correctional Institution for four years for breaking and entering and one year for resisting arrest, the sentences to run concurrently, and has appealed from those judgments and sentences.
On Saturday, July 24, 1965, at about 8:00 a. m., a Baltimore policeman, while patrolling in a police car, noticed that the hasp of a lock on the door of a shed, which was maintained as a hobby workshop, was removed and that the door was partially open. When the policeman went into the shed he observed some items scattered around and noticed a few tools on some boards of lumber. As he was making a further investigation, two males ran out behind him. He saw them, but because the shed was dimly lighted he did not immediately recognize them. However, he never lost sight of them, and when they got out into the daylight, he recognized the appellant, who was only a short distance away, as one of the two fugitives. After giving chase, he apprehended only one of the two, as appellant outran him. The policeman testified that he knew appellant by sight and knew members of his family. Appellant produced three witnesses who testified, not without serious discrepancies, that appellant had been with them at the time he was said to have been seen running from the shed.
Appellant first makes the contention that his representation by his court appointed attorney in the court below was so inadequate as to amount to incompetency of counsel. He based this contention on the claims that his attorney visited him once before the trial while he was in jail awaiting trial; that he was not adequately advised of his rights to have his indictment quashed; that his attorney told him it would be best for his case if he took the stand; and that all witnesses necessary to his defense were not summoned.
A close scrutiny of the record indicates that appellant's contention is totally without merit. It indicates that appellant's attorney was very familiar with the happenings and defenses of this case and that the attorney made timely objections and adequately protected appellant's interest. At the trial, both the judge and the attorney made certain that appellant knew his right to have his indictment quashed under Schowgurow v. State, 240 Md. 121, 123 A.2d 475, but he elected to waive this right. Also the record is clear that appellant was advised of his constitutional right not to testify. He elected by his own decision not to take the stand. However, when the trial was continued until the next day at appellant's request in order to summon further witnesses, he was again affirmatively advised by his attorney and the court of his right not to take the witness stand on his own behalf. Appellant said: 'I'll testify.' Again, the record affirmatively shows that appellant was asked if there were any other witnesses he wanted summoned to testify. He mentioned only one witness, for whom the summons was returned non est. No proffer was made by appellant as to this witness' testimony.
The record is silent as to objections that appellant made to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Conyers v. State
...the first time on appeal an objection which was available to him at the trial and which he did not raise below"); Caviness v. State, 244 Md. 575, 578, 224 A.2d 417, 418 (1966)(observing that "unless a defendant makes timely objections in the lower court or makes his feelings known to that c......
-
Salisbury Beauty Schools v. State Bd. of Cosmetologists
...181 Md. 464, 30 A.2d 737 (1943).7 Appellants' Motion (R. 30), Board's Motion (R. 35).8 Memorandum (R. 69).9 See Caviness v. State, 244 Md. 575, 578, 224 A.2d 417, 418 (1966), concerning waiver of objections in the trial court.10 See n. 4, supra.10a In Liberto v. Mayor and City Council, etc.......
-
Everhart v. State
...which he desired the court to take and the reasons therefor. See Brice v. State, 254 Md. 655, 255 A.2d 28 (1969); Caviness v. State, 244 Md. 575, 224 A.2d 417 (1966); he also made a proffer upon the record concerning the nature of the testimony to be submitted by Lawson and the hearing judg......
-
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Kerpelman
...convincing evidence required in a defamation case such as this. (Id. at 330, 413 A.2d at 183.) We point out that in Caviness v. State, 244 Md. 575, 224 A.2d 417 (1966), Judge Marbury said for the Court: We have held that the testimony of one eye witness, if believed, is sufficient to convic......