Green v. State
| Decision Date | 26 December 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 115,115 |
| Parties | Francis Julius GREEN v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Morris Lee Kaplan, Nathan Stern and Frank J. McCourt, Baltimore, for appellant.
Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., James P. Garland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Saul A. Harris, State's Atty., and Julius A. Romano, Asst. State's Atty., of Baltimore City, Baltimore, for appellee.
Before HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.
The appellant, Francis Julius Green, was convicted by a jury on three indictments, each of which charged him with armed robbery. The court, after the jury's findings of guilt, sentenced the appellant to twenty years in the Maryland Penitentiary under Indictment No. 4575, twenty years in the Maryland Penitentiary under Indictment No. 4576, the latter sentence to run consecutive to the sentence in No. 4575, and twenty years in the Maryland Penitentiary under Indictment No. 4577, the sentence to be concurrent with the sentence in No. 4576; making a total of forty years. From the judgments and sentences this appeal was taken.
His contentions are that a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal should have been granted, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction, that it was reversible error to admit into evidence the guns and holster taken from the defendant's room as the result of an illegal search and seizure, that his confession was involuntary and should not have been admitted into evidence, that the lower court was unfair, and that the court appointed counsel was incompetent.
We find no merit in any of these contentions. This case was tried by a jury and the record does not disclose that any motion for directed verdict was made, so that there is nothing before us as to the sufficiency of the evidence. Woodell v. State, 223 Md. 89, 162 A.2d 468. There was no objection to the admission into evidence of the guns and holster claimed to have been obtained as the result of an illegal search and seizure, so that there is nothing for this Court to review on this point. Gouker v. State, 224 Md. 524, 168 A.2d 521, and cases cited therein; Gray v. State, 224 Md. 76, 167 A.2d 92. With reference to the admission of the confession into evidence, the record discloses that the trial court followed the usual procedure which has been approved by this Court. See for example Ralph v. State, Md., 174 A.2d 163, and Presley v. State, 224 Md. 550, 168 A.2d 510. Though there was conflicting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Friola
...Fourteenth Amendment is violated by the introduction of illegally obtained evidence in a State prosecution.' (See, also, Green v. Maryland, 227 Md. 296, 176 A.2d 228.) We reach the same result as did the California Supreme Court in cases following that court's decision in People v. Cahan, 4......
-
Braun v. State
...of this evidence; Rule 885; Davis v. State, 189 Md. 269, 55 A.2d 702; Daniels v. State, 213 Md. 90, 106, 131 A.2d 267; Green v. State, 227 Md. 296, 298, 176 A.2d 228; Edmondson v. State, Md., 185 A.2d 497. Even if it were before us, however, the appellant's cause would not be aided. He took......
-
Edmondson v. State, 7
...for review. Maryland Rule 885; Davis v. State, 189 Md. 269, 55 A.2d 702; Daniels v. State, 213 Md. 90, 106, 131 A.2d 267; Green v. State, 227 Md. 296, 298, 176 A.2d 228. We do not, therefore, reach the substantive question now sought to be raised under the defendant's second contention. Lea......
-
Green v. Warden of Md. Penitentiary, 86
...conviction relief from his convictions for armed robbery were finally litigated in the direct appeal decided per curiam in Green v. State, 227 Md. 296, 176 A.2d 228, the application for leave to appeal from the order of Judge Joseph Allen dismissing the petition must be denied. See Code (19......