Schuette v. State

• Decision Date: 17 April 1962
• Docket Number: No. 234,234
• Citation: Schuette v. State, 179 A.2d 864, 228 Md. 340 (Md. 1962)
• Parties: Robert William SCHUETTE v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 340

228 Md. 340

179 A.2d 864

Robert William SCHUETTE v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 234.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

April 17, 1962.

Charles A. Herndon, Jr., Baltimore, for appellant.

Gerard Wm. Wittstadt, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Saul A. Harris, State's Atty., and Robert V. Lazzaro, Asst. State's Atty., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Before HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and SYBERT, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant pleaded guilty under an indictment for escape from the Maryland Penitentiary. He now seeks to have the judgment and sentence entered upon that plea set asise, contending that a copy of the indictment was not furnished to him in sufficient time prior to the arraignment to enable him to plead intelligently, in violation of Rule 723(a) of the Maryland Rules (1958 ed.) and Art. 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and that the trial court failed effectively to inform him of his right to counsel, in violation of Rule 723(b) and (c). We find no merit in either contention.

The indictment was received by the appellant on the day of his arraignment. It contained two counts, each stating the charge in simple language. At the arraignment the clerk informed appellant of the nature of the charge. After an inquiry by the clerk as to whether he planned to obtain counsel, appellant stated that he '* * * would rather just dispense with the preliminaries and if possible * * * just go ahead with the trial.' Appellant then pleaded guilty. Any possible violation of Rule 723(a) and (c) or the Maryland Declaration of Rights in regard to the time of serving the indictment was effectively waived when appellant requested immediate trial and voluntarily entered a plea of guilty. Gouker v. State, 224 Md. 524, 168 A.2d 521 (1961). The record reveals that appellant was 39 years of age and of at least average intelligence. The charge recited in the indictment was uncomplicated and the record leaves no doubt but that the appellant understood it when he elected to proceed.

Appellant's further contention that he was not informed of his right to obtain counsel until after the court had accepted his plea of guilty, and then only in such unclear terms that he was not fully apprised of this right, in violation of Rule 723(b) and (c), is not supported by the record. As noted, in reply to the clerk's inquiry as to appellant's plans in regard to an attorney, appellant stated he wanted to 'just go ahead with the trial', and indicated that he wished to plead guilty. The plea was accepted, but subsequently the trial judge formally...