Shifflett v. State
| Decision Date | 04 April 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 170,170 |
| Parties | Everett W. SHIFFLETT v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Alan J. Bloom, Baltimore, for appellant.
Henry J. Frankel, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Moylan, Jr., and Thomas N. Biddison, Jr., State's Atty., and Asst. State's Atty., for Baltimore City respectively, on brief, for appellee.
Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.
On April 12, 1967 appellant Everett W. Shifflett was convicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, Judge Charles D. Harris presiding without a jury, of storehousebreaking, being a rogue and vagabond, and carrying a concealed deadly weapon. He was sentenced to terms of five years, two years and three years on the respective charges, to be served in the Maryland Correctional Institution. The sentences for storehousebreaking and being a rogue and vagabond were concurrent, and the three year sentence for carrying a deadly weapon was consecutive, totalling in all eight years imprisonment.
The sole contention on appeal is that there was legally insufficient evidence to sustain the convictions.
The evidence adduced at the trial shows that on October 20, 1966, at approximately 7:00 a. m., Edwin S. Vance, manager of Ronnie's Tavern, noticed two men, one of whom was appellant, parked in a car located in an unusual position for those patronizing the tavern. The car was situated in a near-by field rather than in the parking lot provided for the customers. The two men entered the tavern and departed soon thereafter. Vance testified he left the tavern at 12:00 midnight, but that the barmaid did not close the establishment until 2:00 a.m.
At approximately 2:40 a.m. on the morning of October 21, 1966, Officer Barclay of the Southern District was patrolling in the vicinity of Ronnie's Tavern. Pursuant to his duties of checking the doors of the stores in the area, he left his patrol car and approached the rear of the tavern with a flashlight in hand. He came upon three white males standing ten feet from the rear window of the tavern. They immediately ran to the rear of some houses adjacent to the tavern. Officer Barclay testified he did not see their faces, but that one of the males was 'big and husky and wore a three-quarter length black leather jacket.' He did not give pursuit, but came back to his patrol car and called for assistance. He so positioned his car to observe the alley and the immediate area into which the men had run. Within 'two or three minutes' Officer DiStefano, Officer Rainey and Sergeant Stricker joined Officer Barclay. Officers DiStefano and Barclay found two men under a bush in the yard of a home adjacent to the tavern. They were brought to the parking lot. Officers Barclay and Rainey returned to the area, and while in the rear of the house next to where the two men were discovered appellant, 'a big man wearing a black leather jacket' was apprehended. He was crouched down by the steps of a small building at the rear of the house. Appellant's apprehension took place '120 to 250 feet' from the tavern, approximately ten minutes after the officers arrived at Officer Barclay's request.
Officers Barclay and Rainey returned to the area where the appellant's confederates were discovered and found a loaded gun. They next proceeded to the area where appellant was apprehended and discovered a straight razor, black tape and a punch and glass cutter, partially covered by a man's sock.
Shortly thereafter the police requested Vance to come to the tavern. Upon arrival, he observed the storeroom windows were pried open and the bars on the windows were pulled apart. Furthermore, the pole securing the doors on the inside had been removed, and a crowbar was discovered in the immediate area. Vance testified that the windows were in proper condition the day before.
We stated in Thomas v. State, 1 Md.App. 528, 231 A.2d 915, 918, 'The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. State
...immediate use." See Evans v. State, 11 Md.App. 451, 459, 274 A.2d 653, 658, cert. denied, 262 Md. 746 (1971); Shifflett v. State, 3 Md.App. 550, 554, 240 A.2d 286, 288 (1968).2 The foregoing is consistent with, and more fully explained in, the testimony at trial. Ray had been shot once in t......
-
Hall v. State, 339
...177, 233 A.2d 821; Buckley v. State, 2 Md.App. 508, 235 A.2d 754; Sparkman v. State, 3 Md.App. 527, 533, 240 A.2d 328; Shifflett v. State, 3 Md.App. 550, 554, 240 A.2d 286; Burton v. State, 7 Md.App. 671, 682, 256 A.2d 826; or even, under appropriate circumstances, with attempted burglary, ......
-
Evans v. State
...or that it was in such proximity to him as would make it available for his immediate use.' We applied this rule in Shifflett v. State, 3 Md.App. 550, 240 A.2d 286, in holding the evidence was sufficient to show a violation of the statute when a razor was not found on the arrestee's person b......
-
Broadway v. State
...Art. 27, § 36, see Corbin v. State, 237 Md. 486, 491, 206 A.2d 809; Evans v. State, 11 Md.App. 451, 459, 274 A.2d 653; Shifflett v. State, 3 Md.App. 550, 554, 240 A.2d 286. ...