Cornwell v. State

Decision Date02 August 1967
Docket NumberNo. 247,247
Citation1 Md.App. 576,232 A.2d 281
PartiesCharles Daniel CORNWELL v. STATE of Maryland.
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

J. Bowie Lillard, Hyattsville, for appellant.

Frank A. DeCosta, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Arthur A. Marshall, Jr., State's Atty. for Prince George's County, and James H. Taylor, Asst. State's Atty. for Prince George's County, Upper Marlboro, on brief, for appellee.

Before ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH, and THOMPSON, JJ., and DANIEL T. PRETTYMAN, Special Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The Appellant, Charles Daniel Cornwell, was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County of burglary, robbery with a deadly weapon and assault and battery. Sentences and judgments thereon were entered on June 27, 1966, and the Order for Appeal was filed on August 19, 1966.

The State, in its brief, has moved to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the Order for Appeal was not filed within the period prescribed by Maryland Rule 1012.

The Appellant contends that the time for appeal was extended by the trial judge when he learned that no timely appeal had been filed. There is no provision in the Maryland Rules, or elsewhere, authorizing the lower court to extend the time within which an Order for Appeal to this Court shall be filed. Accordingly, the State's Motion to Dismiss the Appeal will be granted in accordance with the provisions of Maryland Rule 1035 b 2.

We are mindful that a number of questions raised by the Appellant, such as incompetency of counsel, double jeopardy, perjured testimony and denial of due process, would require an evidentiary hearing and, therefore, could not properly be passed upon in this appeal.

Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is being granted without prejudice to the Appellant's rights to pursue the remedies provided in the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act, Code, Art. 27, Sec. 645A, and any other legal remedies available to him.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted.

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Ruby v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1997
    ...to the Court of Special Appeals shall be filed. Blackstone v. State, 6 Md.App. 404, 406, 251 A.2d 255 (1969); Cornwell v. State, 1 Md.App. 576, 577-578, 232 A.2d 281 (1967). Although appellant failed to note an appeal within the time limits prescribed by Maryland Rule 8-202, the trial court......
  • Johnson v. State, 76
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • February 24, 1975
    ...or elsewhere authorizing the lower court to extend the time within which an order of appeal to this Court shall be filed. Cornwell v. State, 1 Md.App. 576, 232 A.2d 281. Nor did the filing of a motion for a new trial after conviction and sentence extend the time for filing an appeal. McCoy ......
  • Creighton v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1990
    ...authorizing the lower court to extend the time within which an Order for Appeal to this Court shall be filed." Cornwell v. State, 1 Md.App. 576, 577-78, 232 A.2d 281 (1967). Appeals not filed within the time allowed "must be dismissed." Riviere v. Quinlan, 210 Md. 76, 77, 122 A.2d 332 (1956......
  • Colao v. County Council of Prince George's County
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1996
    ...86 A.2d 734, 735 (1952) (neither a circuit court nor the appellate court can extend the time for appeal); see also Cornwell v. State, 1 Md.App. 576, 577-78, 232 A.2d 281, 282 (no provision in Rules authorizing lower courts to extend time to file order for an appeal), cert. denied, 247 Md. 7......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT