Powell v. State

• Decision Date: 19 July 1967
• Docket Number: No. 145,145
• Citation: 231 A.2d 737,1 Md.App. 495
• Parties: Walter Ellsworth POWELL v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 495

1 Md.App. 495

231 A.2d 737

Walter Ellsworth POWELL v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 145.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

July 19, 1967.

Certiorari Denied Nov. 16, 1967.

G. Denmead LeViness, Baltimore, on brief, E. Thomas Maxwell, Jr., Baltimore, for appellant.

Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Thomas A. Garland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles E. Moylan, Jr., State's Atty John D. Hackett, Asst. State's Atty., for Baltimore City, for appellee.

Before ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ., and WLLIAM W. TRAVERS, Special Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted by the court sitting without a jury of robbery with a deadly weapon and common law assault on three separate indictments and sentenced to a total of forty years imprisonment.

Appellant contends on this appeal that his reindictment as command by Schowgurow v. State, 240 Md. 121, 213 A.2d 475 was invalid since the Grant Jury continued to be illegally constituted as no new law had been enacted by the State Legislature 'so that it is illegal and unconstitutional to try him under a non-existing law.' Virtually the same contention was raised and rejected in Hutchinson v. State, 1 Md.App. 362, 230 A.2d 352. We therefore find the appellant to have been validly reindicted.

Appellant also contends, in effect, that his conviction was unconstitutional because the judge before whom he was tried without a jury was required, as a qualification of office, to affirm a belief in the existence of God. This contention is also lacking in merit, having been decided against appellant's position in Ralph v. Warden, 245 Md. 74, 224 A.2d 851. See also Ralph v. Brough, D.C., 248 F.Supp. 334.

Appellant next contends that 'all accusing witnesses against the petitioner' should be 'disqualified' under Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights because he was placed in a line-up where he was behind a screen and could not see his accusers. We find this contention frivolous. There is no showing that the line-up conducted in this case was either unfair or unreliable and there is nothing per se unconstitutional about a police line-up See United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149; Gilbert v. State of California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 and Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199, all decided on June 12, 1967.

Appellant's further contention that his arrest was unlawful is likewise without merit. It is well settled that an illegal arrest does not invalidate a subsequent conviction, Nadolski v State, 1 Md.App. 304, 229 A.2d 598, and the illegality of arrest, by itself, is immaterial where it produced no 'fruits' which were offered as evidence in the case. McChan v. State, 238 Md. 149, 207 A.2d 632; Matthews v. State, 237 Md. 384, 206 A.2d 714; Hutchinson v. State, supra; Ross v. Warden, 1 Md.App. 46, 227 A.2d 42.

Nor do we find that the imposition of the sentence in this case constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The sentence was within lawful limits and it is not contended that the trial judge was actuated by any improper motive in imposing it. Under these circumstances, the sentence cannot be reviewed on appeal. Gleaton v. State, 235 Md. 271, 201 A.2d 353.

In Burks v. State, 1 Md.App. 81, 227 A.2d 355, we held that an assault count in an indictment ordinarily merges into the armed robbery count, since the assault necessarily involves the armed robbery, the facts necessary to prove the assault being essential ingredients in establishing the greater offense of armed...