Linkey v. State, 1403

CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland
Writing for the CourtWILNER
Citation46 Md.App. 312,416 A.2d 286
PartiesDavid Gibson LINKEY, Jr. v. STATE of Maryland.
Docket NumberNo. 1403,1403
Decision Date14 July 1980

Page 312

46 Md.App. 312
416 A.2d 286
David Gibson LINKEY, Jr.
v.
STATE of Maryland.
No. 1403.
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.
July 14, 1980.

[416 A.2d 287] Clarence W. Sharp, Assigned Public Defender, for appellant.

Kathleen M. Sweeney, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen., Donaldson C. Cole, Jr., State's Atty., for Cecil County and Paul S. Podolak, Asst. State's Atty., for Cecil County, on the brief, for appellee.

Argued before MELVIN and WILNER, JJ., and J. LOUIS BOUBLITZ, Specially Assigned Judge.

Page 313

WILNER, Judge.

On March 16, 1979, appellant was indicted for the first degree murder of one Burl Daniel Howell, Jr. On June 11, 1979, pursuant to Maryland Rule 736, he moved to suppress (1) in general, all incriminating evidence against him, on the theory that it was obtained as a result of either an illegal arrest or an unlawful search and seizure, and (2) in particular, all statements taken from him by the police, on the premise that they were taken in violation of his State and Federal Constitutional rights.

After an evidentiary hearing, the Circuit Court for Cecil County, on July 31, 1979, denied the suppression motion, except as to certain statements made on January 30, 1979, which it suppressed. All other statements were held to be given voluntarily and in compliance with the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and the other evidence challenged by appellant was held to have been properly obtained.

At some point prior to the commencement of trial on August 9, 1979, the parties (and the court) entered into what they considered to be a "plea bargain." What this involved, essentially, was (1) appellant maintaining his plea of not guilty, (2) the State proceeding upon an "agreed statement of facts" on a charge of second degree murder and agreeing not to prosecute the heavier charge of first degree murder, and (3) the court agreeing (subject to considering a presentence investigation report) to a sentence not to exceed 30 years with the last 12 years suspended, thus involving a maximum period of incarceration of 18 years. The first part of this was made manifest when, at the commencement of trial, the State's Attorney announced:

"And by agreement, we are going to proceed on an agreed statement of facts. [416 A.2d 288] And, basically, Your Honor, with regard to the charge that on or about January 16, 1979, the Defendant, David Gibson Linkey, Jr., proceeded to the home of Burl Howell, Jr., located on Dogwood Road, Cecil County,

Page 314

Maryland, where an argument ensued over Buella Ruth Thompson. Miss Thompson was living at the residence of Burl Howell, Jr. at that time. The Defendant accused Mr. Howell with making improper advances toward Miss Thompson.

The Defendant grabbed a knife from the kitchen and stabbed Mr. Howell several times, which caused his death. This was done with malice, but without premeditation, deliberation, and without justification, excuse or mitigating circumstances."

This statement was stipulated to by appellant. No other evidence was offered; and no other statements bearing on the facts of the case or on appellant's guilt were made. Solely upon the stipulation quoted above, the court pronounced appellant guilty. On November 13, 1979, after reviewing a presentence investigation report, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • State v. Huy, 2005-307-C.A.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • 8 Diciembre 2008
    ...The defendant must have required the prosecution "to utilize the evidence which he has unsuccessfully challenged," Linkey v. State, 46 Md.App. 312, 416 A.2d 286, 289 (Ct.Spec.App.1980); a defendant may not absolve the prosecutor of his or her burden of proof "by conceding the ultimate facts......
  • Bishop v. State, 1, Sept. Term, 2010.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 4 Noviembre 2010
    ...an accused must preserve his or her legal challenges by ensuring that the proffer includes the challenged evidence. Linkey v. State, 46 Md.App. 312, 416 A.2d 286 (1980), demonstrates this conundrum. In that case, after the trial judge denied Linkey's pretrial motion to suppress incriminatin......
  • Bishop v. State Of Md., 1
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 4 Noviembre 2010
    ...an accused must preserve his or her legal challenges by ensuring that the proffer includes the challenged evidence. Linkey v. State, 46 Md. App. 312, 416 A.2d 286 (1980), demonstrates this conundrum. In that case, after the trial judge denied Linkey's pretrial motion to suppress incriminati......
  • Holmes v. State, 2866
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 4 Marzo 2020
    ...judge's ruling on the motion is not preserved for appellate review." Jackson v. State, 52 Md. App. 327, 332 (citing Linkey v. State, 46 Md. App. 312, (1980)), cert. denied, 294 Md. 652 (1982). Accordingly, because the State did not proffer Holmes' statements from the Hospital at trial, we h......
  • 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