Taylor v. State
| Decision Date | 06 November 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 51,51 |
| Parties | William TAYLOR, Jr. v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Julian B. Stevens, Jr., Annapolis, for appellant.
Russell R. Reno, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, and C. Osborne Duvall, State's Atty., for Anne Arundel County, Annapolis, on the brief), for appellee.
Argued before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, PRESCOTT, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.
On December 18, 1961, the appellant pleaded guilty, in the Circuit Court of Anne Arundel County, to an information charging him with having escaped from the Maryland House of Correction 'while undergoing lawful imprisonment' therein. Code (1957), Article 27, Section 139.
He raised three questions in his brief, but we find it necessary to consider the third only. He pleaded guilty, but the record fails to show, affirmatively, compliance by the trial court with Maryland Rule 723 b and c (now amended and designated as Rule 719 b 1 and d). Rule 723 b and c provided that 'if the defendant appears in court without counsel, the court shall advise him of his right to obtain counsel' and 'The record shall affirmatively show compliance with this Rule.' We have held that these requirements are mandatory and must be complied with, irrespective of the gravity of the crime charged, the type of plea entered, or the lack of an affirmative showing of prejudice to the accused. Hill v. State, 218 Md. 120, 145 A.2d 445; Bryant v. State, 218 Md. 151, 145 A.2d 777; Williams v. State, 220 Md. 180, 151 A.2d 721; Merritt v. State, 221 Md. 118, 156 A.2d 228. The judgment must, therefore, be reversed and a new trial awarded.
Judgment reversed and case remanded for a new trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parren v. State
...to Rule 4-215, that its provisions were mandatory, citing Manning v. State, 237 Md. 349, 353, 206 A.2d 563 (1965); Taylor v. State, 230 Md. 1, 2, 185 A.2d 197 (1962); Williams v. State, 220 Md. 180, 181, 151 A.2d 721 (1959); Hill v. State, 218 Md. 120, 127, 145 A.2d 445 We remain satisfied ......
-
Johnson v. State, 128
...[Md.] Rule 4-215, that its provisions were mandatory, citing Manning v. State, 237 Md. 349, 353, 206 A.2d 563 (1965); Taylor v. State, 230 Md. 1, 2, 185 A.2d 197 (1962); Williams v. State, 220 Md. 180, 181, 151 A.2d 721 (1959); Hill v. State, 218 Md. 120, 127, 145 A.2d 445 We remain satisfi......
-
Manning v. State
...and mental ability of the accused and any other relevant consideration' indicate that representation fairly is required. In Taylor v. State, 230 Md. 1, 185 A.2d 197, we held the requirements of Rule 719 to be mandatory and, therefore, required to be complied with irrespective of the type of......
-
Montgomery v. Warden, Md. House of Correction
...his defense.' And after stating the pertinent parts of Maryland Rule 719, the Court said, page 353, 206 A.2d page 565, 'In Taylor v. State, 230 Md. 1, 185 A.2d 197, we held the requirements of Rule 719 to be mandatory and, therefore, required to be complied with irrespective of the type of ......