Graham v. State
| Decision Date | 01 April 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 222,222 |
| Citation | 6 Md.App. 458,251 A.2d 616 |
| Parties | Alfonso GRAHAM v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Charles A. Reese, Ellicott City, on brief, for appellant.
James L. Bundy, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Richard J. Kinlein and Cornelius D. Helfrich, State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty., for Howard County, respectively, on brief, for appellee.
Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.
Alfonso Graham, the appellant, was convicted of breaking a dwelling house with intent to steal by the Circuit Court for Howard County Judge James Macgill presiding without a jury. He was sentenced to serve a term of five years. Graham contends that : (1) he was denied a speedy trial; (2) he was denied a preliminary hearing; (3) his arrest was illegal; (4) evidence seized as a result of the arrest should not have been admitted into evidence; and (5) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.
During the morning or early afternoon of March 14, 1967, two television sets were stolen from the home of Sarah Matthews who resided in Elkridge, Maryland. On June 9, 1967, police officers arrested Graham at his home in Baltimore City under a warrant for a robbery that is not the subject of this appeal. They observed two television sets which met the description of the ones theretofore reported stolen from the home of Sarah Matthews. The police officers at that time seized the television sets, one of which bore the name of Sarah Matthews.
Graham first contends that he was denied a speedy trial. He was arrested on June 9, 1967, indicted on September 5, 1967, and tried on May 16, 1968. He requested a speedy trial on November 28, 1967 and February 27, 1968. During this period he was confined as a result of other charges. On March 21, 1968 Graham requested that his counsel appointed on December 21, 1967, be replaced. His request was granted and new counsel was appointed.
The only evidence offered to support the motion to dismiss the indictment because of the denial of a speedy trial was the two letters mentioned above. The question must therefore be decided on these two letters and the bare record, State v. Williams, 6 Md.App. 5, 249 A.2d 503. Since the record does not show prejudice to Graham, nor that the delay was capricious, arbitrary or oppressive on the part of the state, we cannot say that there was a denial of a speedy trial. Under the circumstances disclosed the time lapse was not sufficient to support a prima facie denial. See authorities collected in Harris v. State, 6 Md.App. 7, 249 A.2d 723.
Graham next contends that he was denied due process of law because he did not have a preliminary hearing. Kardy v. Shook, 237 Md. 524, 207 A.2d 83 held that 'there is no constitutional right thereto, (a preliminary hearing) in the absence of specific provision therefor.' See also Fabian v. State, 3 Md.App. 270, 281-282, 239 A.2d 100.
Graham contends that his arrest was illegal and that the evidence seized at the time of the arrest was improperly admitted into evidence. There was some conflicting testimony as to whether the warrant referred to above was actually read to Graham at the time of his arrest or whether he was merely informed of the warrant and the charges. One police officer testified that he did not read the warrant until they took him down to the police station, but, however, that he had informed Graham at the time of his arrest of the charges and that he was holding the warrants in his hand. Another police officer testified that he did read the warrant at the time of the arrest. Under Maryland Rule 706 b:
If the testimony of either police officer is accepted there was a compliance with the rule. There was no obligation on the trial judge to accept contrary testimony by Graham or by his witness, Hale v. State, 5 Md.App. 205, 245 A.2d 908.
The television sets were readily observed when the police officers entered the appellant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wilson
...5 Md.App. 88, 245 A.2d 614; State v. Williams, 6 Md.App. 5, 249 A.2d 503; King v. State, 6 Md.App. 413, 251 A.2d 628; Graham v. State, 6 Md.App. 458, 251 A.2d 616; Barnett v. State, 8 Md.App. 35, 257 A.2d 466; Wilson v. State, 8 Md.App. 299, 259 A.2d 553; Caesar v. State, 10 Md.App. 40, 267......
-
Stone v. State
...A.2d 1048 (2006). "Additionally, possession may be joint." Myers, supra, 165 Md.App. at 529, 885 A.2d 920 (citing Graham v. State, 6 Md.App. 458, 463, 251 A.2d 616 (1969)). "In other words, as we have consistently held, `joint possession does not negate the notion of exclusive possession.'"......
-
State v. Lawless
...which finding was the predicate for its ultimate ruling that the indictment be dismissed for the lack of a 'speedy trial.' 6 Md.App. 458, 251 A.2d 616, that a delay of eight months was 'not substantial'; in Johnson v. State, 4 Md.App. 648, 244 A.2d 632, that a delay of eleven months was 'no......
-
Painter v. State
...stolen goods, it was appellant's burden to provide a "reasonable explanation" of how he came into possession of them. Graham, 6 Md.App. at 463, 251 A.2d 616. ("The law is clear that recent, exclusive possession of stolen goods creates an inference of fact that the possessor was the thief or......