Johnson v. State, 67
| Decision Date | 14 November 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 67,67 |
| Citation | 164 A.2d 917,223 Md. 479 |
| Parties | Claire Gorton JOHNSON v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
John P. Mudd, Upper Marlboro, for appellant.
James O'C. Gentry, Asst. Atty. Gen. (C. Ferdinand Sybert, Atty. Gen., William L. Kahler and Frank P. Flury, State's Atty. and Deputy State's Atty., Prince Georges County, Upper Marlboro, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
Johnson, the appellant, sentenced to five years imprisonment on his plea of guilty to the first count of an information which charged him with unlawfully breaking into a storehouse with intent to steal goods of the value of $25.00 or more (the language of Code (1957), Art. 27, Sec. 32), contends that he did not understand the nature and effect of his plea. In essence, his claim is that the count also charged an offense under Code (1957), Art. 27, Sec. 342, which makes it a crime subject to the maximum penalty of eighteen months imprisonment to unlawfully break into a storehouse with intent to steal goods under the value of $100.00, and that he intended to plead guilty to the latter crime.
Formerly, sections 32 and 342 were complementary and mutually exclusive. Chapter 18 of the Laws of 1952 amended Sec. 342 by increasing the value of the goods intended to be stolen from $25.00 to $100.00. Section 32, however, remained unchanged until it too was amended by Chapter 40 of the Laws of 1960, by the changing of $25.00 or more to $100.00 or more. Thus, between 1952 and June 1, 1960, there existed an overlap in that the terms of both statutes would seem to apply if the intent was to steal more than $25.00 and less than $100.00, as was noticed by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Davis v. Pepersack, 255 F.2d 29, 30. The crime with which appellant was charged was committed February 2, 1960.
We think it is plain that Johnson was charged with violation of Sec. 32 and pleaded guilty to the crime specified by that section. Johnson waived indictment, and elected to be tried on information. The first count of the information charged a violation of Sec. 32 in the words of the statute. The second count charged larceny of $142.00. The third count charged the receiving of stolen goods of the value of $142.00. Johnson did not move to dismiss the indictment or otherwise to challenge its sufficiency and, if he understood the nature and effect of his plea of guilty, cannot do so in this Court. Code (1957), Art. 27, Sec. 606; Schanker v. State, 208 Md. 15, 116 A.2d 363.
An information in the words of the statute is sufficient notice to the defendant of the charge of which he is accused, Hickman v. Brady, 188 Md. 103, 52 A.2d 72; Schanker v. State, supra; Hanson v. Warden, 198 Md. 681, 83 A.2d 927, in the absence of contravening circumstances and no such circumstances appear in the case before us.
That appellant was fully aware of the crime to which he pleaded guilty is made plain by four parts of the record. First, breaking and entering with intent to steal and larceny, even though part of the same occurrence, are separate crimes which may be charged in separate counts of the same indictment or information, and for which there may be separate sentences. Williams v. State, 205 Md. 470, 109 A.2d 89....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Village of Peck v. Denison
... ... 450 P.2d 310 ... 92 Idaho 747 ... The VILLAGE OF PECK, a municipal corporation of the State of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, ... Roger DENISON and Louise Denison, Defendants-Appellants ... Capital State Bank, 21 Idaho 141, 121 P. 561 (1912); Murphy v. Russell & Co., 8 Idaho 133, 67 P. 421 (1901); Addy v. Stewart, 69 Idaho 357, 207 P.2d 498 (1949). Since the district court is ... ...
-
Vuitch v. State
...or law charging the offense. See Putnam v. State, 234 Md. 537, 200 A.2d 59; Seidman v. State, 230 Md. 305, 187 A.2d 109; Johnson v. State, 223 Md. 479, 164 A.2d 917; Kellum v. State, 223 Md. 80, 162 A.2d 473; Kares v. State, 215 Md. 396, 137 A.2d 712; State v. Lassotovitch, 162 Md. 147, 159......
-
Putnam v. State
...137 A.2d 712, in which the warrant or indictment was or may have been defective, but did not fail to state any offense. In Johnson v. State, 223 Md. 479, 164 A.2d 917, referred to by the appellee, the indictment was held sufficient. In Kellum v. State, also referred to by the appellee, 223 ......
-
Turner v. State
...and the larceny committed subsequent to the breaking. Graczyk v. State, 233 Md. 245, 196 A.2d 469; Wilson v. State, supra; Johnson v. State, 223 Md. 479, 164 A.2d 917. As stated in Wersten v. State, 232 Md. 164, 165, 192 A.2d 286, 287, 'Sections 32 and 342 of Art. 27 are complementary and m......