Jones v. State

Decision Date08 March 1984
Docket NumberNo. 60,60
PartiesJohnny Clayton JONES v. STATE of Maryland. Sept. Term 1982.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

George F. Paxton, Bethesda (Katherine Karker-Jennings and Lerch, Early & Roseman, Chartered, Bethesda, on brief), for appellant.

Ann E. Singleton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore (Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, on brief), for appellee.

Argued before SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, DAVIDSON, RODOWSKY and COUCH, JJ., and W. ALBERT MENCHINE, Retired, Specially Assigned Judge.

COLE, Judge.

We granted certiorari in this case to address the question of when the circuit courts of this State have subject matter jurisdiction to try an accused for a crime when one or more, but not all, of the essential elements of that crime are committed in Maryland. We shall not be able to resolve this issue, however, because the State did not appeal from a final judgment. We recite the facts stipulated by the parties.

Jones accosted the victim as she was emerging from her parked car in a parking lot in Montgomery County, intending to go to her place of employment. This parking lot is within one-quarter of a mile of the District of Columbia line. He forced her back into her car, struck her, tied her hands with his sweater, forced her head down on the floor of the car and drove the car away.

After driving awhile, Jones stopped and held a windshield ice scraper against the victim's leg and said: "You know what kind of damage I can do with this, what kind of damage I can do?" Jones had been in the victim's car for approximately ten minutes before making the threat. It is not known whether or not this threat took place in Maryland or the District of Columbia. Jones began driving again and drove for approximately one-half hour before stopping the car in the District of Columbia at a public park. There he took the victim out of the car and forced her to submit to vaginal intercourse. He then drove the victim back to Maryland and exited the car near where he had originally abducted her. The victim called the police from her place of employment. Jones was subsequently apprehended and indicted in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County on charges of first degree rape, kidnapping, robbery, and assault and battery.

Jones made an oral motion to dismiss count one of the indictment charging first degree rape on the ground that neither Maryland statutory nor common law confers subject matter jurisdiction on the circuit court to try him for a crime committed beyond the State's territorial boundaries. He maintained that Md.Code (1957, 1982 Repl.Vol.), Art. 27, § 465 1 is a venue statute applicable among Maryland counties and Baltimore City and that under the common law a defendant cannot be prosecuted for the crime of rape committed in another jurisdiction particularly when, as in this case, the essential element of the crime, vaginal intercourse, occurred beyond the State's borders. The State maintained that the circuit court had jurisdiction either under the statute or at common law.

On May 4, 1981, the circuit court granted Jones' motion to dismiss whereupon Jones entered pleas of guilty to the remaining counts of the indictment. The court accepted the pleas and ordered a pre-sentence investigation. On June 2, 1981, the State filed its appeal specifically from the court's ruling dismissing count one of the indictment. On June 12, 1981, the trial court imposed concurrent sentences on Jones on the remaining charges of kidnapping, robbery and assault and battery.

The Court of Special Appeals entertained the appeal and ruled that § 465 of Article 27 was a venue statute. That court also determined that Jones could be tried in Maryland for first degree rape under the common law. State v. Jones, 51 Md.App. 321, 443 A.2d 967 (1982).

The Court of Special Appeals derives its jurisdiction from the constitution, statutory provisions and rules. Maryland Rule 1012 a generally provides that appeals may be taken to the Court of Special Appeals within thirty days of the judgment appealed from. Ordinarily, such judgment must be final.

Recently we stated that a judgment is final which settles the rights of the parties and leaves nothing to be decided. Warren v. State, 281 Md. 179, 183, 377 A.2d 1169 (1977). Our cases have recognized that no appeal will lie from the entry of a verdict, Eastgate Associates v. Apper, 276 Md. 698, 701, 350 A.2d 661 (1976) (quoting Montauk Corp. v. Seeds, 215 Md. 491, 502, 138 A.2d 907 (1958)), and that ordinarily a criminal case is not complete and the case is not disposed of until sentence has been pronounced. Langworthy v. State, 284 Md. 588, 596, 399 A.2d 578 (1979).

Jones does not challenge this appeal as being premature. However, our cases have made clear that "[w]here appellate jurisdiction is lacking, the appellate court will dismiss the appeal sua sponte." Eastgate Associates v. Apper, supra, 276 Md. at 701, 350 A.2d 661 (citing Diener Enterprises v. Miller, 266 Md. 551, 555, 295 A.2d 470 (1972); Tedrow v. Ford Motor Co., 260 Md. 142, 144, 271 A.2d 688 (1970)).

Under Maryland law the State's right to appeal in a criminal case is limited; it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • State v. Griffiths
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1992
    ...a count when other counts have not been disposed of, the dismissal has not been regarded as a final judgment. See Jones v. State, 298 Md. 634, 471 A.2d 1055 (1984).4 Thus, the situations in Middleton and Griffiths were quite different from that in Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493, 104 S.Ct. 25......
  • Cardinell v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1992
    ...any right of appeal, in either a civil or criminal case, must find its source in an act of the legislature." In Jones v. State, 298 Md. 634, 637, 471 A.2d 1055, 1057 (1984), this Court "Under Maryland law the State's right to appeal in a criminal case is limited; it may do so only when auth......
  • Pennington v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1986
    ...intercourse occurred outside of Maryland yet other essential elements occurred within Maryland), vacated on other grounds, 298 Md. 634, 471 A.2d 1055 (1984). Two aspects of the principle of territorial jurisdiction merit mention in this case. First, as 1 Wharton's Criminal Law § 14 (C. Torc......
  • Robert B v. State Of Md.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • July 8, 2010
    ...once a guilty verdict has been returned and a sentence imposed. A guilty verdict alone may not be appealed. Jones v. State, 298 Md. 634, 637, 471 A.2d 1055 (1984). “Until sentence, and with it a judgment, is entered, the presumption of innocence continues to exist; it is the judgment that r......
  • 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