Kelly v. State

Per Curiam. Appellant, James Walter Kelly, was convicted of larceny of goods over the value of one hundred dollars by a jury, Judge Ernest A. Loveless, Jr., presiding, in the Circuit Court for ⁷³² Prince George’s County, and was sentenced to ten years in the Maryland House of Correction, to run consecutively with a sentence the appellant was then serving at the Lorton Reformatory. Appellant’s sole contention on this appeal is that he was denied a speedy trial. The chronological sequence of events material to this appeal is as follows: June 6, 1965 Appellant arrested on charges of larceny, storehouse breaking and receiving stolen goods.

June 7, 1965 Preliminary Hearing in the People’s Court of Prince George’s County. Not guilty plea entered. Bond set ($1000.00) and appellant bound over for Grand Jury. June 23,1965 Appellant indicted by Grand Jury for storehouse breaking, larceny, receiving stolen goods.

August 3, 1965 Appellant with Court appointed counsel pled guilty to larceny. August 16, 1965 Motion to withdraw guilty plea denied. Sentenced to 10 years in the Maryland House of Correction. December 22, 1965 Indictments dismissed via Schowgurow.

January 7, 1966 Reindicted by Grand Jury. February 10, 1966 Arraignment without counsel — -not guilty plea and election of jury trial entered by the Court. February 17, 1966 Privately retained counsel Wm. V. Myers, Esq. entered appearance.

March, 1966 While on bail and awaiting trial he was arrested in District of Columbia for armed robbery. ⁷³³ March 21,1966 Attorney Meyers moved for leave to withdraw his appearance — defendant had not honored the fee arrangement, was not indigent, and had been given due notice of Atty. Meyers’ action. April 1,1966 Appellant did not object and Attorney Meyers’ appearance was withdrawn. April 6,1966 Trial was set; however, upon Appellant’s request it was removed from trial calendar and postponed.

April 8, 1966 Prior conditional release in D. C. revoked as result of March, 1966 robbery. April 8, 1966 Confined at District of Columbia Jail. June 16, 1966 Trial scheduled for second time. Appellant failed to appear, bond was forfeited, and a bench warrant issued.

July 18, 1966 Appellant wrote the Clerk of the Circuit Court from place of confinement, expressing concern that his bond, for which his sister’s property had been collateral, had been forfeited, and requesting his case be tried. July 27, 1966 Attorney Frank M. Kratovil was assigned as counsel and the letter of July 18, 1966 was viewed as a Motion for trial and was granted. July 28, 1966 A second letter from Appellant requested a speedy trial. August 19, 1966 Transferred to Federal Reformatory in Lorton, Va.

August 26, 1966 While still confined by the federal authorities, Appellant filed a writ of habeas corpus in the Criminal Court without assistance of Attorney Kratovil. ⁷³⁴ Sept. 22,1966 Found guilty of robbery in the District Court and sentenced to imprisonment from four to ten years. Dec., 1966 Subpoenas for witnesses and a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. Jan. 9, 1967 Motion to dismiss indictment filed. Hearing in open court on motion for fair and speedy trial.

Motion denied. Guilty, by jury, of larceny. Sentence 10 years Md. House of Correction, consecutive with sentence being served from District of Columbia. Jan. 12, 1967 Motion for new trial filed.

Jan. 16, 1967 Appeal to Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. Feb. 13,1967 Motion for new trial withdrawn. The right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury is secured to criminal defendants by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution by way of the Fourteenth Amendment and by Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. In State v. Long and Nelson, 1 Md. App. 326 (1967), this Court stated “the right to a speedy trial involves a nice balancing of two rights of society — the primary obligation to ascertain the guilt or innocence of an accused and the accused’s right to have the accusation determined without oppressive delay.” Since there is no definition of the term in the constitutions, and the varied circumstances surrounding particular cases are innumerable, and for the main part, unforeseeable, the term has