Purnell v. State, No. 36
| Court | Court of Appeals of Maryland |
| Writing for the Court | Before PRESCOTT; PRESCOTT |
| Citation | 217 A.2d 298,241 Md. 582 |
| Parties | James Frederick PURNELL and William Harrison Purnell v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Docket Number | No. 36 |
| Decision Date | 08 March 1966 |
Page 582
v.
STATE of Maryland.
Page 583
[217 A.2d 299] Wallace E. Hutton, Frederick, for appellants.
Fred Oken, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, and Robert S. Rothenhoefer, State's Atty. for Frederick County, Frederick, on the brief), for appellee.
Before PRESCOTT, C. J., and HAMMOND, MARBURY, OPPENHEIMER and McWILLIAMS, JJ.
PRESCOTT, Chief Judge.
There is little substance in this appeal. An uncle and nephew, represented by competent counsel, pled guilty in the Circuit Court for Frederick County to breaking and entering Yost's Diner. After the plea, Judge Clapp proceeded to take testimony to aid in his determination of the proper sentences to impose. During the course of this testimony, Officer Stafford of the State Police stated that appellants had confessed that they committed the crime to which they had pled guilty, and they also said that, shortly thereafter, they were interrupted in an attempt to break into a store in Brunswick by an officer; whereupon they abandoned their automobile and fled. They took a
Page 584
truck belonging to Richard Kline without his permission, and returned to their place of residence, Hagerstown, where the truck was abandoned. (Other evidence supported the attempt to break into the store and the abandonment of their car.) Counsel for appellants objected 'to this testimony as to any other crime other than the crime for which they are being tried,' and the court overruled the objection. The defendants did not testify, and, after a presentence investigation, which disclosed criminal records extending over long periods of time, the court imposed sentences.The only question for our determination is whether the court committed prejudicial error in overruling the objection. Judge Clapp was not trying the defendants to decide their guilt or innocence; he was taking testimony to assist in deciding the length of their sentence. The testimony received related to defendants' actions over a period of some three hours, which included the commission of the crime to which they had pled guilty.
Appellants' entire argument is based upon a misconstruing of the language used in the opinion in Walker v. State, 186 Md. 440, 443, 47 A.2d 47, 48, which follows: 'Of course, a trial court should not consider [on the question of sentence] mere charges of which a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Logan v. State, Nos. 24
...the sentence that should be imposed. (Bartholomey v. State, 267 Md. 175, 193, 297 A.2d 696, 706 (1972); see also Purnell v. State, 241 Md. 582, 585, 217 A.2d 298, 299-300 (1966); Skinker v. State, 239 Md. 234, 237, 210 A.2d 716, 717-18 (1965).) In considering what is proper punishment, it i......
-
Lodowski v. State, No. 154
...13 See Johnson v. State, 274 Md. 536, 540, 336 A.2d 113 (1975); Henry v. State, 273 Md. at 147-148, 328 A.2d 293; Purnell v. State, 241 Md. 582, 585, 217 A.2d 298 (1965); Farrell v. State, 213 Md. 348, 355, 131 A.2d 863 (1956); Driver v. State, 201 Md. 25, 31, 92 A.2d 570 (1952); Murphy v. ......
-
State v. Reeves, No. 88-972
...not involving a section 413 death penalty proceeding. Logan v. State, 289 Md. 460, 480-87, 425 A.2d 632, 642-46 (1981); Purnell v. State, 241 Md. 582, 217 A.2d 298[234 Neb. 724] (1966). We only a few months ago stated in Logan v. State that: "[i]n considering what is proper punishment, it i......
-
Bartholomey v. State, No. 106
...he is invested with wide discretion in determining the sentence to be imposed within the authorized statutory limits. Purnell v. State, 241 Md. 582, 217 A.2d 298 (1966); Farrell v. State, 213 Md. 348, 131 A.2d 863 (1957). In other words, to aid the sentencing judge in fairly and intelligent......
-
Logan v. State, Nos. 24
...the sentence that should be imposed. (Bartholomey v. State, 267 Md. 175, 193, 297 A.2d 696, 706 (1972); see also Purnell v. State, 241 Md. 582, 585, 217 A.2d 298, 299-300 (1966); Skinker v. State, 239 Md. 234, 237, 210 A.2d 716, 717-18 (1965).) In considering what is proper punishment, it i......
-
Lodowski v. State, No. 154
...13 See Johnson v. State, 274 Md. 536, 540, 336 A.2d 113 (1975); Henry v. State, 273 Md. at 147-148, 328 A.2d 293; Purnell v. State, 241 Md. 582, 585, 217 A.2d 298 (1965); Farrell v. State, 213 Md. 348, 355, 131 A.2d 863 (1956); Driver v. State, 201 Md. 25, 31, 92 A.2d 570 (1952); Murphy v. ......
-
State v. Reeves, No. 88-972
...not involving a section 413 death penalty proceeding. Logan v. State, 289 Md. 460, 480-87, 425 A.2d 632, 642-46 (1981); Purnell v. State, 241 Md. 582, 217 A.2d 298[234 Neb. 724] (1966). We only a few months ago stated in Logan v. State that: "[i]n considering what is proper punishment, it i......
-
Bartholomey v. State, No. 106
...he is invested with wide discretion in determining the sentence to be imposed within the authorized statutory limits. Purnell v. State, 241 Md. 582, 217 A.2d 298 (1966); Farrell v. State, 213 Md. 348, 131 A.2d 863 (1957). In other words, to aid the sentencing judge in fairly and intelligent......