Coleman v. State
| Decision Date | 23 November 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 142,142 |
| Citation | 221 Md. 30,155 A.2d 649 |
| Parties | William A. COLEMAN v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Fred E. Weisgal, Baltimore, for appellant.
James H. Norris, Jr., Sp. Asst. Arry. Gen. (C. Ferdinand Sybert, Atty. Gen., and Joseph S. Kaufman, Asst. Atty. Gen., C. Osborne Duvall, State's Atty. for Anne Arundel County, Annapolis, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
In this case, as in State v. D'Onofrio, Md., 155 A.2d 643, we granted leave to appeal in a proceeding under the Post Conviction Procedure Act, Code Supp. 1959, art. 27, § 645A et seq., and the two cases were argued successively. Here, the court below denied the petition, which was based upon alleged perjured testimony. The original trial was held on August 26, 1955, the appellant being convicted, by the court without a jury, of breaking and entering, and sentenced to a term of five years. Appeal was taken to this Court and the judgment affirmed. Coleman v. State, 209 Md. 379, 121 A.2d 254. It appeared that certain television sets and radios were forcibly taken from a store in Glen Burnie in the early morning of April 7, 1955. A police officer saw a truck going the wrong way on a one-way street in Glen Burnie at about 1:30 A. M. He hailed it, but the driver drove away. The truck was abandoned at the 'dead end' of the street, and the four occupants fled. Loretta Cox and Dellavox were picked up in the vicinity shortly thereafter. The police officer could identify only on of the occupants, Myers. The abandoned truck, which had been stolen, contained the stolen articles mentioned above.
Loretta Cox, sixteen years old at the time of the burglary, testified she knew Cleman and the other boys and was with them in the truck. She sat in the truck with Dellavox while Myers and Coleman went to get coffee. She heard a crash and they came back with certain boxes, and drove off. The police chase ensued almost at once. She had gone for a ride with the three boys, but had heard no previous discussion as to a burglary, and knew nothing about their intentions. The chief contention raised in the case was that Loretta Cox was an accomplice, and that her testimony was uncorroborated. No other witness connected Coleman with the burglary. She was not tried for any crime, but had been before the juvenile court. There was no evidence as to the outcome of that proceeding. We held that the trial court's finding that she was not an accomplice was not clearly wrong.
The appeal was argued on February 8, 1956. On February 16, 1956, the attorney for the appellant filed in this Court an affidavit purportedly made by Loretta Cox on that date, indicating that she had heard the proposal to steal a car and burglarize a store, some days before, and had full knowledge of their intent to commit the crime; that she had been guilty of perjury at the trial. He asked this Court to stay its decision and remand the case to permit the filing of a motion for new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. We held that we had no authority to grant the motion, citing Madison v. State, 205 Md. 425, 109 A.2d 96. For the reasons set out at length in State v. D'Onofrio,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woods v. Steiner
...enactment in 1958. Rice v. Warden, 221 Md. 604, 156 A.2d 632 (1959); Jordan v. State, 221 Md. 134, 156 A.2d 453 (1959); Coleman v. State, 221 Md. 30, 155 A.2d 649 (1959); State v. D'Onofrio, 221 Md. 20, 155 A.2d 643 (1959). As a petition of the same substance as that presented here has neve......
-
Burgess v. State, 94
...some way advocate or encourage the commission of the crime. Coleman v. State, 209 Md. 379, 384-85, 121 A.2d 254 (1955), aff'd, 221 Md. 30, 155 A.2d 649 (1959) (citations In Wilson v. State, 319 Md. 530, 573 A.2d 831 (1990), the Court of Appeals delineated the test for sufficiency of the evi......
-
Mason v. State
...Jordan v. State, 221 Md. 134, 156 A.2d 453 (1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 972, 80 S.Ct. 606, 4 L.Ed.2d 552 (1960); Coleman v. State, 221 Md. 30, 155 A.2d 649 (1959); State v. D'Onofrio, 221 Md. 20, 155 A.2d 643 (1959). Rather, as we earlier indicated, the Act consolidates into one statute a......
-
State v. Tull, 387
...v. State, 226 Md. 422, 174 A.2d 167, aff'd 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215; State v. Giles Md., 212 A.2d 101; Coleman v. State, 221 Md. 30, 155 A.2d 649; State v. D'Onofrio, 221 Md. 20, 155 A.2d 643, and cases We find no violation of or any affront to any fundamental or basic rig......