Hickman v. State

⁹² Barnes, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant, Joseph D. Hickman, was indicted on four counts for burglary, rogue and vagabond, larceny and receiving stolen goods. After a plea of not guilty he was tried on May 20 and 21, 1964 with two separately indicted co-defendants before Judge J. Gilbert Prendergast, sitting without a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore. He was found guilty on the first count (burglary) and on the third count (larceny).

A motion for a new trial was denied on November 25, 1964 and the appellant was sentenced to six years in the Maryland Penitentiary. This appeal followed. On the evening of March 19, 1964, the appellant was arrested on a charge of burglary (not germane to this case) on the complaint of Mrs. Edrice Pelizardo. Mrs. Felizardo, who testified she thought appellant “may have been stealing things,” turned over to the police a portable typewriter which she testified had been given to her daughter by the appellant in the latter part of January, 1964.

That typewriter was identified by Mrs. Edna Bello as being among the articles stolen from her apartment at 1501 Abbottston Street in Baltimore City on the evening of January 25, 1964. Two witnesses, John McNamara and Ellis Tucker, III, positively identified the appellant at the trial as one of two men they saw carrying packages from 1501 Abbottston Street on the night of the burglary. Although, on cross-examination, Mr. Tucker admitted that (at a police line-up) he mistook appellant for one of the co-defendants, at the trial the following dialogue took place: “(The Court) * * * Is there any doubt in vour mind, Mr. Tucker, at this time, that' Mr. Stack and Mr. Hickman are the men you saw on the night of January 25 in the vicinity of Abbottston Street? “(The Witness) No, sir. * * * “(The Court) Is there any doubt in your mind at this time? “(The Witness) No sir. I know it’s Stack and Hickman.” ⁹³ Witnesses McNamara and Tucker further testified that on the evening of January 25, 1964, they observed the appellant enter a cream-colored 1958 Oldsmobile car in the vicinity of Abbottston Street and noted down its license number.

On January 26th, police halted an automobile meeting that description with temporary tag numbers very similar to the numbers noted by the witnesses. A search of the car (the legality of which was questioned at trial, but found by the trial judge to have been made incident to a lawful arrest on probable cause) revealed a screwdriver which exactly matched indentations in the doorjamb as 1501 Abbottston Street and a bottle of medicine which former police officer Pruitt testified bore appellant’s name. The bottle was not introduced into evidence and Mr. Pruitt admitted on cross-examination that it could have borne the name of appellant’s brother, Jackson Hickman. The appellant elected to remain silent and did not testify in his own behalf at the trial.

The appellant contends in his brief prepared by court appointed counsel that (I) the evidence produced at his trial was not sufficient to warrant a conviction and (II) the conduct of counsel at his trial was so inadequate as to amount to deprivation of due process of law. The appellant in proper person