Clemons v. State

Morton, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant was convicted of robbery with a deadly weapon and carrying a concealed weapon in a non-jury trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. Consecutive sentences of fifteen years and two years, respectively, were imposed. The record discloses that on December 16, 1968, at approximately 11:30 p.m., the employees of an all-night .supermarket were robbed at gunpoint of over $600.00 by two men.

While all three of the employees testified that ■the taller of the two men wore a maroon shirt, only one -employee was able to positively identify the appellant as being a participant in the robbery. James A. Chapman, a State Trooper who was driving by the market at the time of the robbery, but unaware that it was being committed, testified that he saw two men cross the road in front of the market and enter a late model, blue, fastback Ford, occupied by a third man. "Upon later learning of the robbery, Trooper Chapman, who testified that one of the men he saw crossing the road was wearing a short-sleeved maroon shirt, radioed the description of the car to other patrol cars in the area. Soon thereafter, Trooper Patrick V. Drum observed and began pursuing a car of that description.

When the car came to a stop after hitting a curb, two of the men jumped ¹²⁹ out and escaped while the appellant, who was the driver of the car and wearing a short-sleeved maroon shirt, was apprehended. A search of the car, which was registered in appellant’s name, produced a bag containing $639.40 and a loaded .32 cal. Smith & Wesson pistol, both being found in plain view on the “back floor of the automobile.” Appellant took the stand in his own defense and testified that he picked up two hitchhikers who forced him at gunpoint to flee from the police and that he did not participate in the robbery. In this appeal it is first contended by the appellant that he was “denied due process of law by the absence of a preliminary hearing.” We disagree.

As this Court has stated many times, a preliminary hearing is not a necessary prerequisite to a valid indictment and, accordingly, an accused, under the present state of the law, is not deprived of any constitutional right by the absence of such a proceeding. Graham v. State, 6 Md. App. 458, 461 . Appellant further contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain his convictions. With respect to his conviction of robbery with a deadly weapon, appellant contends that he was not positively identified by the victims of the crime and that the money found in his car was never introduced into evidence.

While it is apparent from an examination of the record that the money was never introduced into evidence, there was testimony of the State Troopers that the money in question was found in appellant’s car. Under the circumstances here, there was no evidentiary requirement that the money, as such, be introduced into evidence. In any event, there was no objection to the police testimony concerning the