State v. Shoemaker

Decision Date19 June 1961
Docket NumberNo. 67,67
Citation225 Md. 639,171 A.2d 468
PartiesSTATE of Maryland v. Homer Allen SHOEMAKER. Post Conviction
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.

HAMMOND, Judge.

In this post conviction case, the application for leave to appeal is by the State from an order of Judge Digges entered in 1960, directing that the petitioner be granted a delayed appeal from his conviction of rape in 1957.

The accused's uncle had furnished funds to pay the lawyer who represented him. After the verdict, the accused told his lawyer he wished to file a motion for a new trial and that if this were unsuccessful, an appeal. The next day the prisoner's wife called the lawyer and directed him vigorously and explicitly to take no further part in the case. Despite this, the lawyer filed and argued the motion for a new trial, feeling that his duty to his client required this much. The motion was denied and the lawyer took no further part in the case. He did not advise his client that he had been told not to do so by the wife.

The wife asked a Washington lawyer, who had represented her in other matters, to prosecute an appeal for her husband. The Washington lawyer was not admitted to practice in Maryland and requested a lawyer who practiced both in Washington and in Maryland to handle the case. The Washington-Maryland lawyer filed notice of an appeal and later requested and received an extension of time for the filing of the record but, apparently because a retainer fee requested of the wife had not been paid, did nothing further to perfect the appeal. He never met or consulted with the prisoner or even advised him that he had been retained in his behalf.

It appears from the record that the prisoner patiently awaited the results of the appeal he thought he had taken and, hearing nothing, wrote to his original attorney to inquire about the status of his case and, discovering that his appeal had been dismissed, sought relief under the Post Conviction Procedure Act. Code Supp. art. 27, § 645A et seq.

Judge Digges, after hearing the testimony of the prisoner, his original lawyer, and the Washington lawyer (the Washington-Maryland lawyer did not appear), made the following findings of facts:

That the prisoner was a pauper; that the Washington-Maryland lawyer did not advise the prisoner that he could proceed as a pauper without payment of costs or counsel fee; that his right to have the case...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Taylor v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • April 2, 2018
    ...a State official interferes with a party's original appeal).In a post-conviction case, the Court of Appeals in State v. Shoemaker , 225 Md. 639, 640–41, 171 A.2d 468, 469 (1961), granted Shoemaker a delayed appeal because the accused's attorney did nothing to perfect Shoemaker's direct appe......
  • Wilson v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • March 30, 1979
    ...the case now before us that the first belated appeal granted under post conviction procedures was not of that mold. In State v. Shoemaker, 225 Md. 639, 171 A.2d 468 (1961) our predecessors denied an application for leave to appeal by the State from an order of the Circuit Court for Prince G......
  • Taylor v. State, 2190
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • April 2, 2018
    ...if a State official interferes with a party's original appeal). In a post-conviction case, the Court of Appeals in State v. Shoemaker, 225 Md. 639, 640-41 171 A.2d 468, 469 (1961), granted Shoemaker a delayed appeal because the accused's attorney did nothing to perfect Shoemaker's direct ap......
  • Ruby v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1997
    ...Md. 664, 399 A.2d 256 (1979) (postconviction); Fisher v. Warden, 230 Md. 612, 185 A.2d 198 (1962) (post-conviction); State v. Shoemaker, 225 Md. 639, 171 A.2d 468 (1961) (post-conviction); Lloyd v. Warden, 217 Md. 667, 143 A.2d 483 (1958) (habeas corpus ); Hardy v. Warden, 218 Md. 659, 662,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT