Osborne v. State

Per Curiam. ' In this appeal, Roger W. -Osborne, the Appellant, contends that he was denied a speedy trial. On April 27, 1965, he pleáded guilty in the Criminal Court of Baltimore to charges of escape and assault with intent to murder and was sentenced to a term of seven years in the Maryland Penitentiary to run consecutively to a ten year sentence for another offense not related to this appeal. Notwithstanding his guilty pleas, he appealed and while his appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals of Maryland, Schowgurow v. State, 240 Md. 121, was decided, and his cases on appeal were remanded. Osborne challenged the original indictments; they were dismissed on March 4-, 1966; and he was- advised by the lower court that counsel would be appointed at a later date to represent him.

He was reindicted on February 20, 1967. During the period between March 4, 1966 and his reindictment, he wrote letters to the Clerk of Court, two judges and the State’s Attorney requesting' the appointment of counsel and the immediate disposition of his remanded cases.- On January 30, 1967, he filed, pro se, a “Motion to Drop Detainers and Reindictment Proceedings” and alleged therein that he - had been denied a “speedy reindictment.” Subsequent to his reindictment, counsel w-as appointed to represent him and on April 17, 1967, a hearing was held before Judge J. Harold Grady on the Motion to Drop ¹⁶³ Detainers and Reindictment Proceedings. The Motion was denied and this appeal is from that denial. While it is true that both the Sixth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights give an accused the right to a speedy trial, these constitutional mandates have never been extended to encompass an alleged right to a so-called speedy indictment and it is this alleged right which the Appellant asserts was violated by the State. 1 The Court of Appeals of Maryland and this Court have held, with exceptions not here