Vandegrift v. State, No. 323

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
Writing for the CourtBefore BRUNE; HORNEY
Citation91 A.L.R.2d 507,171 A.2d 713,226 Md. 38
Docket NumberNo. 323
Decision Date23 June 1961
Parties, 91 A.L.R.2d 507 Richard Allen VANDEGRIFT v. STATE of Maryland.

Page 38

226 Md. 38
171 A.2d 713, 91 A.L.R.2d 507
Richard Allen VANDEGRIFT
v.
STATE of Maryland.
No. 323.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
June 23, 1961.

Page 39

Harry J. Goodrick, Elkton, for appellant.

Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., William J. McCarthy, Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. Albert Roney, Jr., State's Atty. for Cecil County, Elkton, for appellee.

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

HORNEY, Judge.

The primary question on this appeal is whether the general sentence imposed by the trial court (in lieu of separate sentences on the several counts of an information) was proper.

On July 9, 1959, Richard Allen Vandegrift (the defendant) was charged with a series of breakings and larcenies in a ten-count information, the first of which--charging the defendant with larceny to the value of $100 or more--was stricken on the motion of the State's Attorney. The second count charged the defendant with stealing the goods of John E. Slouick, Jr., of a value of less than $100; the third count charged a breaking and entering of the Slouick filling station with intent to steal [171 A.2d 714] the personal goods of another of a value in excess of $25 (but less than $100); and the fourth count charged a breaking and entering of the same premises and stealing goods and chattels of a value in excess of $1.

Page 40

The fifth, sixth and seventh counts charged the same three offenses with regards to the goods and filling station of Donald West. And the eighth, ninth and tenth counts charged the same offenses with regards to the goods and tavern of Reginald Thompson.

The defendant plead guilty to the remaining nine counts, and, after a hearing on July 17, 1959, the trial court entered a general verdict of guilty and sentenced the defendant to the Maryland State Reformatory for Males for an indeterminate period of time not to exceed five years. On the motion of the defendant for a correction of his sentence pursuant to Maryland Rule 744a, the court, on December 14, 1960, reduced the indeterminate sentence to four and one-half years. The defendant appealed claiming that the original and corrected sentences were both in excess of the limits prescribed by law.

The defendant, though conceding that the court had authority under Code (1957), Art. 27, §§ 341 and 342, to impose a sentence of eighteen months, apparently contends that the court was without authority to impose sentences of eighteen months for a violation of both sections, but his primary claim seems to be--since he insists that he was properly convicted on only three counts and was in effect given the maximum of eighteen months under each count without a direction that the sentences should run consecutively--that the imposition of a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • People v. McFarland, Cr. 7138
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • November 20, 1962
    ...31 L.R.A. (N.S.) 727-730). 10 Williams v. State (1954) 205 Md. 470, 109 A.2d 89, 92(7, 8)-94(9); accord, Vandergrift v. State (1961) 226 Md. 38, 171 A.2d 713, 11 State v. Byra (1942), 128 N.J.L. 429, 26 A.2d 702, 703-704(1, 2), affd. 129 N.J.L. 384, 30 A.2d 49 (1943), cert. den. 324 U.S. 88......
  • I. W. Berman Properties v. Porter Bros., Inc., No. 216
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • September 8, 1975
    ...A.2d 50; Williams v. Maryland Glass Corp., 134 Md. 320, 106 A. 755; Restatement, Contracts, Sec. 408; 6 Corbin, Contracts, Sec. 1293.' 226 Md. at 38, 171 A.2d at [344 A.2d 71] Where the evidence is in conflict, the issue of whether or not there was a novation is one of fact for the jury, or......
  • Tender v. State, Nos. 49
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • January 9, 1968
    ...cover all the counts of the indictment or the total sentence is apportioned to the several counts of the indictment.' Vandegrift v. State, 226 Md. 38, 42, 171 A.2d 713, 715, 91 A.L.R.2d 507, quoting United States v. Bernett, 123 F.Supp. 841 (D.C.Md. 1954). In the case before us, the sentenc......
  • Dorfman v. State, No. 50026
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 28, 1977
    ...277 N.Y. 348, 14 N.E.2d 433, cert. denied, 305 U.S. 620, 59 S.Ct. 81, 83 L.Ed. 396 (1938). 16 See, for example, Vandegrift v. State, 226 Md. 38, 171 A.2d 713, 91 A.L.R.2d 507 (1961); and Johnson v. United States, 276 F.2d 84 (4th Cir. 1960). See also Annot., 91 A.L.R.2d 511 17 See North Car......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • People v. McFarland, Cr. 7138
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • November 20, 1962
    ...31 L.R.A. (N.S.) 727-730). 10 Williams v. State (1954) 205 Md. 470, 109 A.2d 89, 92(7, 8)-94(9); accord, Vandergrift v. State (1961) 226 Md. 38, 171 A.2d 713, 11 State v. Byra (1942), 128 N.J.L. 429, 26 A.2d 702, 703-704(1, 2), affd. 129 N.J.L. 384, 30 A.2d 49 (1943), cert. den. 324 U.S. 88......
  • I. W. Berman Properties v. Porter Bros., Inc., No. 216
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • September 8, 1975
    ...A.2d 50; Williams v. Maryland Glass Corp., 134 Md. 320, 106 A. 755; Restatement, Contracts, Sec. 408; 6 Corbin, Contracts, Sec. 1293.' 226 Md. at 38, 171 A.2d at [344 A.2d 71] Where the evidence is in conflict, the issue of whether or not there was a novation is one of fact for the jury, or......
  • Tender v. State, Nos. 49
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • January 9, 1968
    ...cover all the counts of the indictment or the total sentence is apportioned to the several counts of the indictment.' Vandegrift v. State, 226 Md. 38, 42, 171 A.2d 713, 715, 91 A.L.R.2d 507, quoting United States v. Bernett, 123 F.Supp. 841 (D.C.Md. 1954). In the case before us, the sentenc......
  • Dorfman v. State, No. 50026
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 28, 1977
    ...277 N.Y. 348, 14 N.E.2d 433, cert. denied, 305 U.S. 620, 59 S.Ct. 81, 83 L.Ed. 396 (1938). 16 See, for example, Vandegrift v. State, 226 Md. 38, 171 A.2d 713, 91 A.L.R.2d 507 (1961); and Johnson v. United States, 276 F.2d 84 (4th Cir. 1960). See also Annot., 91 A.L.R.2d 511 17 See North Car......
  • 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