Ridley v. State

PER Curiam. Appellant was found guilty, in a non-jury trial, of breaking and entering a warehouse with intent to steal property ²⁸² therefrom feloniously (Code [1961 Supp.], Art. 27, Sec. 32), and, after receiving a ten-year sentence, has appealed. He raises two contentions: (1) insufficiency of the evidence of 'felonious intent, and to establish that he broke into the premises; and (2) the sentence imposed was not proper. Neither contention presents anything new, and both are unsubstantial.

The evidence, and rational inferences therefrom, disclose: that the warehouse was securely locked by the manager of its owner on the evening of August 5, 1961; sometime between 2:30 a.m. and 4:30 a.m. appellant entered the premises by pushing in a window on the second floor; the desk drawers in the office were pulled out and their contents dumped on the floor (although nothing of value was found therein); appellant then ransacked the second floor, and pried open drawers of a desk located in one of the offices thereon; he, unintentionally, set off a burglar alarm, and the police arrived shortly thereafter. Appellant argues that the State failed to establish an intent on his part to steal goods of the value of $100, or more. The argument needs no elaborate