Owens v. State, 235
| Decision Date | 11 October 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 235,235 |
| Citation | 243 Md. 719,222 A.2d 838 |
| Parties | Irvin N. OWENS, v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Milton B. Allen, Baltimore (George L. Russell, Jr., Richard K. Jacobsen and Brown, Allen & Russell, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
David T. Mason, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen. and Charles E. Moylan, Jr., State's Atty., for Baltimore City, on the brief), for appellee.
Before HAMMOND, C. J., and HORNEY, MARBURY, BARNES and McWILLIAMS, JJ.
The appellant, Irvin N. Owens, pleaded guilty to the second count of a two count indictment charging him with attempted larceny. He was sentenced to one year in the Maryland House of Correction by Judge Dulany Foster in the Criminal Court of Baltimore.
On April 26, 1965, at his arraignment appellant pleaded not guilty. At the trial on June 2, 1965, his counsel, who had previously advised him of what he was being charged in the first and second counts of the indictment and of what the penalties were for each of those offenses, asked appellant if he wished to plead guilty to the second court. Owens nodded affirmatively. When counsel questioned him concerning the absence of promises made to him in order to induce a plea of guilty to the second count he answered that no promises had been made and that he still wished to plead guilty to the second count. After this questioning the trial judge accepted the plea, heard evidence presented by the State's Attorney, and then imposed sentence.
His sole contention on appeal is that because the trial judge did not ask any questions of him concerning his plea of guilty in order to determine if he knowingly and intelligently waived certain constitutional rights, the trial judge failed to satisfy himself of the voluntariness of the plea and of the fact that appellant understood the nature and effect of the plea.
Appellant was no stranger to criminal proceedings. He had an extensive record of convictions dating back at least to 1956. Owens made no claim at the trial and makes no claim now of prejudice nor of and misunderstanding of the consequences of his plea in the court below. In fact he was advised of the nature of the plea and of his rights by his counsel in open court.
It is fundamentally a basic right that an accused by advised of the nature of the charges against him and of the consequences of a plea of guilty, Adams v. State, 224 Md. 141, 167 A.2d 94; Jones v. State, 221 Md. 141, 156 A.2d 421; and this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State
...421 (1959). Those cases reflect the views of this Court until 1966, when in two cases, James v. State, supra, and Owens v. State, 243 Md. 719, 222 A.2d 838 (1966) (per curiam), we implied that the voluntary and intelligent nature of guilty pleas need be clearly established in the trial cour......
-
State v. Thornton
...guilty ... and this is implicit in a knowing acceptance by the court of a guilty plea." Id. at 196, 263 A.2d 19 (citing Owens v. State, 243 Md. 719, 222 A.2d 838 (1966)). In order to assure that this right is not abrogated, the effective acceptance of a guilty plea requires an affirmative s......
-
State v. Priet
...and of the fact that the defendant understands the nature and effect of a plea of guilty." Id. at 428, 219 A.2d 17. In Owens v. State, 243 Md. 719, 222 A.2d 838 (1966), the Court said that it was the duty of the trial judge to ascertain that the guilty-pleading defendant is aware of the nat......
-
McCall v. State
...making further inquiry, and most of them, as a precautionary measure, are doing so.' 242 Md. at 429, 219 A.2d at 20. In Owens v. State, 243 Md. 719, 222 A.2d 838, the Court said, at 721, 222 A.2d at But while it is not absolutely necessary that the trial court personally make inquiry of a d......