State v. Darling

• Decision Date: 19 January 1917
• Docket Number: 51.
• Citation: 100 A. 91,130 Md. 251
• Parties: STATE v. DARLING.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

100 A. 91

130 Md. 251

STATE v. DARLING.

No. 51.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 19, 1917

Appeal from Circuit Court, Caroline County; Wm. H. Adkins and Philemon B. Hopper, Judges.

Earl Darling was convicted, on plea of guilty before a justice of the peace, of assault and battery, and he appealed to the circuit court. From an order of the circuit court overruling its motion to dismiss the appeal, the State appeals. Appeal dismissed.

Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, BURKE, THOMAS, PATTISON URNER, STOCKBRIDGE, and CONSTABLE, JJ.

Fred. R. Owens, State's Atty., of Denton, and Albert C Ritchie, Atty. Gen., for the State.

T. Alan Goldsborough, of Denton, for appellee.

CONSTABLE J.

This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court for Caroline county, in overruling a motion to dismiss an appeal to that court, from a judgment rendered by a justice of the peace, against the appellee. Of course, it is too well established, for controversy, that this court cannot review the action of a circuit court in proceedings on appeal from a judgment of a justice of the peace, provided the action was within the jurisdictional limits of that tribunal. Starliper v. State, 126 Md. 295, 94 A. 908; Green v. State, 113 Md. 451, 77 A. 677; Darrell v. Biscoe, 94 Md. 684, 51 A. 410. It is also true that this court has recognized a motion to quash, as the proper way to raise the question of the jurisdiction of the circuit court to hear an appeal from a justice, and that the order on that motion is an appealable one. Josselson v Sonneborn, 110 Md. 546, 73 A. 650; Allen v. State, 128 Md. 265, 97 A. 362. In Josselson v. Sonneborn, supra, Judge Burke, speaking for the court, said:

"The defendants had the right to raise the question of the jurisdiction of the Baltimore city court by a motion to quash, and an appeal will lie to this court from the order overruling the motion. An appeal from such an order has been entertained by this court in Darrell v. Biscoe, 94 Md. 684 , and Benton v. Stokes, 109 Md. 117 . It is an appropriate method to have the question of jurisdiction of the lower court determined, and while bills of exceptions are not allowed in trial of cases on appeals from judgments of justices of the peace (Cole v. Hynes, 46 Md. 181), the evidence taken before the court below upon the motion to quash may be properly certified to this court, as was done in this case."

The docket entries of the justice show as follows:

"September 13th, 1915, on the oath of Ethel Thomas, who charges Earl Darling with having on the 13th day of September at Caroline county, state of Maryland, committed an assault and battery upon her, the said Ethel Thomas, contrary to law.

State warrant issued, directed to Walter H. Lord, constable, on the 13th day of September. Returned cepi. Trial September 17, 1915. Traverser waives his right to jury trial, as does also state of Maryland.

Traverser pleads guilty. Verdict guilty. Judgment that the said Earl Darling be confined in the Maryland House of Correction for the period of one year from this date."

There appears in the record a certified copy of certain papers filed in habeas corpus proceedings instituted by Earl Darling against the sheriff of Caroline county, on September 20, 1915. These papers consist of copies of the petition, the writ, the commitment, and the order of court.

It appears that, within the statutory limit of ten days for an appeal, the appellee ordered an appeal, but the justice refused to note the same, refused bail, and had him confined to jail until the sheriff could transfer him to the place of confinement, upon the theory that he had no right to appeal from a judgment and sentence pronounced after a plea of guilty.

The writ of habeas corpus, probably, was sought upon the belief that the only way the appellee could get relief was by and through section 535 of article 27 of the Code,...