Pearlman v. State, 5

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
Writing for the CourtBefore BRUNE; PER CURIAM
Citation173 A.2d 733,226 Md. 350
PartiesWilliam PEARLMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Maryland, Appellee. Misc.
Docket NumberNo. 5,5
Decision Date21 September 1961

Page 350

226 Md. 350
173 A.2d 733
William PEARLMAN, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Maryland, Appellee.
Misc. No. 5.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Sept. 21, 1961.

Page 351

[173 A.2d 734] William Pearlman, appellant, in pro. per.

Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., and Lawrence F. Rodowsky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and MARBURY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The State has moved to dismiss the purported appeal of William Pearlman from an order of the Criminal Court of Baltimore dated August 11, 1961, denying Pearlman's application for a redetermination of the question of his indigency. Pearlman was found not to be an indigent and hence not entitled, at State expense, to a copy of the transcript or to payment of a counsel fee in connection with a motion for a new trial in a case in which he and four co-defendants had been convicted of conspiracy to defrand. The question of Pearlman's indigency was determined adversely to him in the Criminal Court of Baltimore after a full hearing held on October 20, 1960, by an order dated November 15, 1960. On appeal to this Court, this finding was affirmed on July 5, 1961. It was held by this Court that Pearlman (and two of his co-defendants who had also been found not to be indigent) would have to pay their pro rata shares of the cost of the transcript if they desired to press their motions for a new trial or to appeal on the merits, and that they would have to employ their own counsel if they desired to be represented by counsel on such a motion or on appeal. Pearlman v. State, 226 Md. 67, 172 A.2d 395.

Page 352

Almost immediately Pearlman sought a stay of the mandate pending application to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari, which application, we were informed, was to be based upon a change in Pearlman's financial condition which he claimed had occurred after the date of the hearing in the trial court on his alleged indigency. This Court being of the opinion any such subsequent change as might have occurred would not constitute a part of the record on his appeal refused to issue a stay. Pearlman then applied to a Justice of the Supreme Court for a stay of the mandate, which was opposed by the State and was denied by Mr. Justice Black on August 4, 1961.

Pearlman then filed an application dated August 6, 1961, with a Judge of the Criminal Court of Baltimore, Judge Sodaro, for a redetermination of the question of his indigency based...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Com'n v. Crawford, MARYLAND-NATIONAL
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1984
    ...review and reversal of the trial court's judgment unless he has filed a valid, timely order of appeal. See, e.g., Pearlman v. State, 226 Md. 350, 173 A.2d 733 (1961); Riviere v. Quinlan, 210 Md. 76, 122 A.2d 332 (1956); Gaines v. Lamkin, 82 Md. 129, 33 A. 459 (1895); Hopper v. Jones, Adm'r,......
  • Joseph H. Munson Co., Inc. v. Secretary of State, 42
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • August 5, 1982
    ...review and reversal of the trial court's judgment unless he has filed a valid, timely order of appeal. See, e.g., Pearlman v. State, 226 Md. 350, 173 A.2d 733 (1961); Riviere v. Quinlan, 210 Md. 76, 122 A.2d 332 (1956); Gaines v. Lamkin, 82 Md. 129, 33 A. 459 (1895); Hopper v. Jones, Adm'r,......
  • Montgomery County v. Greater Colesville Citizens Ass'n, Inc., 696
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1986
    ...657, 212 A.2d 468 (1965). See also Md.--Nat'l Cap. P. & P. Comm'n v. Crawford, 307 Md. 1, 37, 511 A.2d 1079 (1986); Pearlman v. State, 226 Md. 350, 173 A.2d 733 (1961); Riviere v. Quinlan, 210 Md. 76, 122 A.2d 332 (1956); Maryland Rules 1010 and 1011. Accordingly, we will not consider the T......
  • Keys v. Keys, 370
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • November 6, 1968
    ...filed no cross-appeal we will not consider this contention made here for the first time. Rules 811 a, 812 a. See Pearlman v. State, 226 Md. 350, 173 A.2d For the reasons above stated the decree of the lower court will be affirmed. Decree affirmed. Costs to be paid by appellee. ...
  • 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