Palmer v. State

Thompson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. James C. Palmer, the appellant, was convicted of escape by Judge Milton Gerson, sitting without a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore. Judge Gerson imposed a five (5) year sentence to run consecutive to a term of twenty (20) years he was then serving. Appellant, though only thirty-six (36) years old, has achieved to date an abundant and intimate acquaintance with our system of criminal justice.

Over the last twenty (20) years, he has been convicted, inter alia, for larceny after trust, larceny (on four separate occasions), assault, attempted forgery, forgery, conspiracy and uttering checks, burglary, daytime housebreaking, two counts of armed robbery, and escape from the Maryland House of Correction. On appeal, the appellant seeks to overturn his most recent conviction for escape upon the technical grounds that he was not adequately apprised of his constitutional rights at trial. ⁶⁸⁰ On April 17, 1968, appellant was convicted on two charges of armed robbery and was sentenced to concurrent twenty (20) year terms. While serving that sentence, appellant was interned at O’Brien House, a Community Vocational Rehabilitation and Release Center in Baltimore City. Appellant took his leave of this minimum security facility by escaping on August 28,1971.

The trial for escape commenced on March 23, 1973. Counsel for appellant, in open court and in appellant’s presence, waived a reading' of the indictment stating, “.. . We are familiar with the charge.” Counsel entered, what he termed, a “technical plea of not guilty.” Judge Gerson addressed the appellant and received an express waiver of jury trial. A stipulation of facts, which encompasses the State’s case, was entered.

The State’s Attorney recited the State’s evidence which is detailed above. After the stipulation was recited, defense counsel expressly agreed with the facts. Appellant was then advised as to his right not to testify. Judge Gerson asked appellant, if he desired to take the witness stand with regard to the case, to which appellant responded, “Everything he said [reading of the stipulation] is true.” The court rendered its. verdict of guilty.

This appeal questions whether appellant effectively waived his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses, with the derivative right to cross-examine, by entering, through counsel, a stipulation to a statement of facts which comprised the State’s case. 1 The case involves procedure rather than substantive rights. It concerns whether or not direct appeal presents the proper time and place for a defendant in a criminal case to question the binding effect of his counsel’s stipulation to all of the facts in the prosecution’s case, when the defendant sat silently by and made no objection to the stipulation at the trial. We hold the proper time and place is provided for under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act. Md. Code, Art. 27, § 645A-645J. ⁶⁸¹ In Maryland, a defendant can properly enter only four pleas in a criminal case: not guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity, 1A guilty or, with the consent of the court, nolo contendere.

We have construed Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238 , 89 S. Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) to require, when a guilty plea is entered, that the record on direct appeal show, among other things, a personal waiver of the right of confrontation, the right to a jury trial and an understanding that at trial the accused would not have to testify, with no unfavorable inference to be drawn therefrom. English v. State, 16 Md. App. 439, 441-42 , 298 A. 2d 464 (1973), cert. granted, 268 Md. 748 , dismissed, July 3,