Coleman v. State, 231
| Decision Date | 02 April 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 231,231 |
| Citation | 231 Md. 220,189 A.2d 616 |
| Parties | Robert O. COLEMAN v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Robert J. Gerstung, Baltimore, for appellant.
Gerard W. Wittstadt, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., William J. O'Donnell and Robert V. Lazzaro, State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty., for Baltimore City, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and PRESCOTT, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.
On February 15, 1961, the appellant was sentenced to two years' confinement in the House of Correction. The execution of the sentence was suspended, and appellant placed on probation for two years, without supervision, on condition of good behavior, payment of hospital (lying in) expenses of $150 of the prosecuting witness, whom appellant had raped, and court costs of $32.00.
Appellant was employed for the first fourteen months after the suspension of his sentence, and, although he was directed to pay $5.00 per week, he had made, at the time of the revocation of his probation a total payment of only $5.00 on account. The revocation, or striking out, of his probation occurred after a hearing on July 11, 1962. He freely admitted his failure to make the ordered payments, and this was the ground upon which his probation was stricken out.
The State has moved to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the appeal is from an order revoking the suspension of sentence, and the jurisdiction conferred upon the Criminal Court of Baltimore to revoke suspended sentences and strike out probations is a special and limited jurisdiction created by statute, from which no appeal lies. In Swan v. State, 200 Md. 420, 425, 90 A.2d 690, 692, this Court held that such an appeal would lie, 'if only for the purpose of determining whether that discretion [given to the trial court] has been abused in any way, or whether an erroneous construction has been placed by the trial judge on the conditions of parole.' See also Edwardsen v. State, 220 Md. 82, 88, 151 A.2d 132, and compare Warden of Maryland Penitentiary v. Palumbo, 214 Md. 407, 135 A.2d 439. The motion to dismiss will, therefore, be overruled.
However, this affords little, if any, aid and comfort to appellant's cause. When the trial judge revoked the probation on July 11, 1962, he stated: The clerk, apparently in error, made a docket entry as of that date which states: 'Probation stricken out and sentenced to two (2) years in the Maryland House of Correction from July 6, 1962, Foster, Judge.' When the sentence in a criminal case is imposed and execution of the imposed sentence is conditionally suspended, as distinguished from the suspension of the imposition of sentence, and the defendant placed on probation, and thereafter the probation is stricken out, the defendant should not be re-sentenced. His original sentence is effective with the probationary provisions stricken out. Cf. Swan v. State, supra, 200...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dow v. State
...A.2d 677; Ray v. State, 1969, Miss., 229 So.2d 579. The Maryland Court, however, has reached the opposite conclusion. Coleman v. State, 1963, 231 Md. 220, 189 A.2d 616. Also, United States ex rel. Grossberg v. Mulligan, 2nd Cir., 48 F.2d 93. See, 24 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1656, page 1020, an......
-
Duncan v. State, 2519, Sept. Term, 2016
...462 (internal citations omitted). The Court continued:We take this opportunity once again to confirm what we said in Coleman [v. State , 231 Md. 220, 189 A.2d 616 (1963) ] and clarify that, when a court imposes a sentence and then ... suspends execution of all or part of that sentence in fa......
-
Knight v. State
...766. An appeal lies from the revocation of a suspended sentence and the striking out of probation by the lower court. Coleman v. State, 231 Md. 220, 222, 189 A.2d 616. The question of whether the terms of probation have been violated is largely one of fact but also includes the construction......
-
Rainey v. State
...although docket entries are entitled to a presumption of regularity, and "must be taken as true until corrected," Coleman v. State , 231 Md. 220, 222, 189 A.2d 616 (1963), they are not sacrosanct, and the presumption may be rebutted, see, e.g. , Shade v. State , 18 Md. App. 407, 411, 306 A.......