Stevenson v. State
| Decision Date | 22 April 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 242,242 |
| Citation | 4 Md.App. 1,241 A.2d 174 |
| Parties | Maurice Clayvone STEVENSON and Ernest Spencer Borum v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Bernard L. Silbert, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., William A. Linthicum, Jr., and Barry H. Helfand, State's Atty., and Asst. State's Atty., for Montgomery County respectively, on brief, for appellee.
Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.
The appellants were arrested in the District of Columbia in 1965, Stevenson on 3 July and Borum on 6 or 7 July. They were incarcerated in the District of Columbia jail, tried and convicted of the offenses with which they were charged and sentenced to imprisonment. Both were transferred to the District of Columbia Reformatory at Lorton, Virginia in 1966, Stevenson on 3 March and Borum on 14 October and both are incarcerated there at this time. 1
On 14 September 1965 the appellants were jointly charged under four indictments returned by the grand jury of Montgomery County. Indictment No. 7172 charged rape, assault with intent to rape and assault and battery. Indictment No. 7173 charged robbery with a deadly weapon, attempted robbery with a deadly weapon, robbery and assault with intent to rob. Indictment No. 7174 charged the breaking of a dwelling in the daytime with intent to steal, larceny and receiving stolen goods. Indictment No. 7175 charged another offense of breaking a dwelling house with intent to steal. The only other entry on the dockets states, in each case: that a motion to stet the indictment was granted on 28 October 1965, and although the docket entries do not show the reason therefor, it apparently was because of the ruling in Schowgurow v. State, 240 Md. 121, 213 A.2d 475. Indictments Nos. 7367, 7366, 7368, and 7365 charging the same offenses respectively as the prior indictments were thereafter returned on 15 November 1965 and are now pending. The docket entries as to each of the indictments returned on 15 November show under date of 19 September 1966: As subsequent docket entries refer to the appellants by their initials, we take this to mean the appellant Borum. The entries on the docket for each pending indictment further show in relevant part:
'March 14, 1967-Deft. M.C.S. motion for withdrawal of detainers fd. in No. 7365 Crim.
May 17, 1967-Order of Court appointing attorney for Deft. M.C.S. & E.S.B., fd.
June 14, 1967-Deft's. motion to dismiss, fd.
August 14, 1967-Petitions and order of Court granting writ of Habeas Corpus Prosequendum and writ, fd. in No. 7365 Crim.
August 28, 1967-Hearing on Defts. M.C.S. and E.S.B.'s motion to dismiss before Judge Pugh, Miss Wissenbach rept. and motion continued.'
The dockets indicate that the hearing was resumed on 30 August and the motion was granted as to the second count of indictment No. 7366 and denied as to all other counts in all the indictments. The docket with respect to indictment No. 7365 contains one additional entry: 'August 15, 1967-Writ issued ret: Aug. 25, 1967, 10:00 A.M.' 2
Each appellant testified in support of his motion to dismiss the indictments. Borum said that he 'surrendered to the District of Columbia police July the 7th-July the 6th-'65.' He was in the city jail in Washington until 14 October 1965 when he was transferred to Lorton and at the time of the hearing was incarcerated there under sentence. He never received notification of the charges lodged in Montgomery County but about a month after he was placed in the District of Columbia jail he 'received a small piece of paper by a tier runner * * * That's guy that runs up and down and brings you soap and stuff.' The paper contained information that a He denied receiving copies of the indictments pending against him or of the indictments which were stetted. The first time he saw any indictments was on 16 May 1967 when his counsel showed him the pending indictments. He had never seen any bench warrants that were issued for his arrest. He knew what a bench warrant looked like and the small piece of paper delivered by the tier runner was not a bench warrant. It was a 'standard form' with the word 'rape' typed in and a 'Mr. Thrailkill's name typed into it.' About September (the year is not specified but apparently it was 1965) a friend brought a newspaper article to him in his cell in which his name and that of Stevenson appeared as having been indicted for rape in Montgomery County. It gave 'no specific dates or circumstances nor anything.' He knew nothing about being reindicted. He never had an attorney to represent him in the Maryland proceedings until 8 February 1967 in the habeas corpus matter (the same attorney was appointed for him in the pending cases on 17 May 1967) and was not financially able to employ one. He had mailed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in proper person in October 1966 and Stevenson mailed one in January 1967. With regard to the charges in Maryland he had never been arraigned, never had a preliminary hearing or any hearing other than on the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He alleged that he was prejudiced by the fact of the detainers being lodged against him at Lorton as they resulted in his being placed in On cross-examination he stated that when he had received the paper from the tier runner he wrote three or four letters. Two of them came back. He did not file a paper in a court in Maryland until the petition for writ of habeas corpus. He was represented by an attorney regarding the charges in the District of Columbia and he told her about the detainer and asked her 'what possibly could I do about it.' She replied that she could not have anything to do with that case as 'she was confined to the case in the District of Columbia.' When he received the paper from the tier runner, he was faced with three trials in the District of Columbia. He did not consider the petition for a writ of habeas corpus to be a request for a speedy trial; he was seeking information about the charges against him in Montgomery County. 'This is the first time that I had any opportunity to pursue anything in this jurisdiction * * * I had no time at that time (when he received the paper), at that particular time or way in '66.' He urged that Maryland should have let him 'at least know a date so I could inform my witnesses or try to get a witness or try to recollect in my own mind what happened on that date, try to reconstruct something for it * * * If you could serve a bench warrant against me stating rape you could have put the date, rape against whom, whom I am supposed to have assaulted and whose house I broke into * * * What do I do? I write to any Judge and say, 'I'd like a speedy trial on rape?"
Stevenson testified that he was arrested 3 July 1965 and had been incarcerated since that time-in the District of Columbia jail until 3 March 1966 and thereafter at Lorton. He claimed that he first learned of the charges pending in Montgomery County in 'the middle part of September 1965' when he was given 'a piece of paper stating there was a detainer lodged against my record for rape in favor of Detective Thrailkill.' This was the only information he received until he was shown the indictments in May of 1967. Prior to 8 February 1967 he had no attorney to represent him or advise him regarding the charges in Maryland. The attorney representing him with regard to the charges in the District of Columbia told him he represented him only on those charges and suggested that he He was prejudiced by being denied parole He found out that his brother-in-law (Borum) 'had filed a habeas corpus' and 'took the same motion and had someone type it up for me and filed it in January of-January the 16th or 19th, 1966' (the correct date was January 24, 1967). On cross-examination he stated that he had talked to Borum about the detainer when they 'went to the District court to answer the indictment' charging them with offenses in the District of Columbia. He did not write to anyone about the rape charge and particularly not 'Inspector Thrailkill' because that officer had threatened him the night he was arrested, telling him that unless he made certain statements against Borum he would be charged 'with a rape and seven or eight unsolved housebreaking charges in Maryland.'
Copies of the docket entries pertaining to indictments Nos. 7172, 7173, 7174 and 7175 were admitted in evidence as the appellants' exhibits. A deputy United States Marshal testified that he had transported federal prisoners into Maryland on a writ of habeas corpus prosequendum but on cross-examination stated that he did so on order of 'a district court judge for the District of Maryland' and had no authority to do so on an order of a state judge.
Inspector ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. State
...473, 243 A.2d 620, cert. denied, 251 Md. 751 (1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 948, 89 S.Ct. 2027, 23 L.Ed.2d 466 (1969); Stevenson v. State, 4 Md.App. 1, 241 A.2d 174, cert. denied, 251 Md. 747, 752 (1968); Osborne v. State, 3 Md.App. 161, 238 A.2d 145, cert. denied, 250 Md. 732 (1968); Brown......
-
State v. Wilson
...the presumption arose and where the burden shifted had been denominated the point of 'substantial' delay. As early as Stevenson v. State, 4 Md.App. 1, 241 A.2d 174, with Judge Orth speaking for this Court, we opted for that middle position. That notion of 'substantial' delay as a presumptio......
-
State v. Jones
...and the burden shifts has been denominated the point of 'substantial' delay. Lawless 13 Md.App. at 233, 283 A.2d 160; Stevenson v. State, 4 Md.App. 1, 13-15, 241 A.2d 174. There is no precise measuring rod by which to determine when a delay becomes 'substantial'; that determination must be ......
-
State v. Lawless
...some conceivable 'due process' right beyond that involved in the question of a 'speedy trial', we feel as we did in Stevenson v. State, 4 Md.App. 1, 17-18, 241 A.2d 174, 185: 'The appellants were apprised of the crimes charged by the indictments ultimately delivered to them and, in view of ......