Schuette v. State

Per Curiam. The appellant pleaded guilty under an indictment for escape from the Maryland Penitentiary. He now seeks to have the judgment and sentence entered upon that plea set aside,, contending that a copy of the indictment was not furnished' to him in sufficient time prior to the arraignment to enable him to plead intelligently, in violation of Rule 723 (a) of the-Maryland Rules (1958 ed.) and Art. 21 of the Maryland: Declaration of Rights, and that the trial court failed effectively to inform him of his right to counsel, in violation of Rule 723 (b) and (c). We find no merit in either contention.

The indictment was received by the appellant on the day of his arraignment. It contained two counts, each stating the charge in simple language. At the arraignment the clerk informed appellant of the nature of the charge. After an inquiry by the clerk as to whether he planned to obtain counsel, appellant stated that he “* * * would rather just dispense with the preliminaries and if possible * * * just go ahead with the trial.” Appellant then pleaded guilty.

Any possible violation of Rule 723 (a) and (c) or the Maryland Declaration of Rights in regard to the time of serving the indictment was effectively waived when appellant requested immediate trial and voluntarily entered a plea of guilty. Gouker v. State, 224 Md. 524 (1961). The record reveals that appellant was 39 years ³⁴² of age and of at least average intelligence. The charge recited in the indictment was uncomplicated