McLean v. State

Per Curiam. The appellant, Robert G. McLean, was convicted of forgery in the Criminal Court of Baltimore by Judge E. McMaster Duer, sitting without a jury. He was sentenced to three years under the jurisdiction of the Department of Correction. Two questions are presented in this appeal: 1.

Whether the appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel ? 2. Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict? The item which is involved in the instant case is a check of Swindell Plate & Window Glass Company, No. 2664, dated ³⁶⁸ September 14, 1967, payable to the order of Daniel L. Bower for the sum of $97.50, drawn on the Equitable Trust Company, signed Charles F. Godfrey, and endorsed Daniel Dee Bower. At trial Margaret Schaefer testified that she was employed by the Hecht Company as a cashier on September 15, 1967.

She stated that on that date the appellant presented to her the subject check to be cashed. The check was already endorsed, she did not see the appellant endorse the check, and she did not know who had endorsed it. When- she asked the appellant for identification he gave her a Maryland operator’s license. Emily Libertini testified that she was employed as a credit manager by the Hecht Company at the time in question.

She stated that she received the check from the cashier and that she asked the appellant to step into her office, which he did. The appellant identified himself to Mrs. Libertini with an operator’s license in the name of Daniel Lee Bower. She then asked the appellant to walk with her to the personnel office. During the walk to the personnel office the appellant broke away from her and ran.

Mrs. Libertini also stated that the check was never actually negotiated. Eugene Brown, employed by the Hecht Company in the security department, stated that he was on his way to the credit department in response to a call from Mrs. Libertini when he saw the appellant leave Mrs. Libertini and run. Mr. Brown apprehended the appellant in the store’s parking lot. William C. Walsh testified that he was employed by the Swindell Plate Glass Company on September 11, 1967.

On that date the Glass Company had been robbed of approximately 382 blank payroll checks. He stated that the checks when stolen had nothing written on them by the Glass Company. He identified the subject check as one of the checks stolen on September 11, 1967. The appellant testified he was the person who ran from Mr. Brown but denied that he knew the check was stolen, denied that he forged the check, and denied that he had anything to do with obtaining money by fraudulent checks from anyone.

With respect to the question raised concerning the effective assistance of counsel, the point was not tried and decided below and is not properly before us. Maryland Rule 1085. We have ³⁶⁹