Smith v. State

Collins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The record in this case contains four cases against Romey Smith, tried in the Criminal Court of Baltimore City, charging the appellant in four separate indictments, one with robbery, two with robbery with a deadly weapon, and one with assault. Sentences’ imposed were ten years in the first case, twenty years in the second case, twenty years in the third case and six months in the fourth case. After conviction and sentence, an appeal was taken by the appellant in like manner as in the cases of Wilbur Coates (c) v. State, 180 Md. 502 , 25 A. 2d 676 , reported immediately preceding the report of these cases.

Immediately after the appeal was filed the judge of the trial court who has the cases, appointed counsel to represent the appellant in order to have his cases reviewed. That counsel did not see fit to file the motions as were filed in the Wilbur Coates cases, supra, and the only question before us in the cases of Romey Smith is whether the fact that he was not represented by counsel justifies a conclusion that the appellant has not been convicted according to the “law of the land.” As no motions were made, the record was sent to us by the Criminal Court without any certification by the court. This appellant was an old offender and served a term at Cheltenham. He then served a jail sentence and later served ten years in the Maryland Penitentiary, less certain time off.

In May of 1941 he was sentenced to four months in the Maryland House of Correction. He was ⁵³¹ thirty years of age at the time of his trial and in reviewing the record his rights seemed to have been rather well protected. He was familiar with criminal trials. His position differs from that of Coates in the further fact that the court took ample care of his rights and the record shows fair trials.

The counsel, appointed by the court to prosecute these appeals, stated frankly in this court that he could find no objection to the trials in these cases and that the only question before us was whether the fact that he