State v. Oglesby

Thompson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. These proceedings arise from an appeal by the State from an order of the Criminal Court of Baltimore dismissing the murder indictment for the lack of a speedy trial, as required by both federal and state constitutions. Richard Roger Oglesby, the appellee, was originally convicted of murder after a trial held in the Criminal Court of Baltimore between April 29, 1965 and May 4, 1965. A motion for a new trial was pending at the time the Court of Appeals rendered its decision in the case of Schowgurow v. State, 240 Md. 121 , 213 A. 2d 475 .

After Oglesby’s election to exercise his rights thereunder, a new indictment was returned on August 19, 1966. On March 17, 1967, a motion to dismiss the indictment for the lack of a speedy trial was filed. A hearing was held on the motion on April 4, 1967, but the matter was held sub curia until February 24, 1969 when it was granted. On November 22, 1967, the case had been set for trial but postponed because of the pendency of the preliminary motion.

On January 29, 1969 court appointed defense counsel was released from the case and the appearance of retained defense counsel was entered. At the argument on the motion, Oglesby’s counsel contended the critical period to be considered was from March 17, 1967 to February 24, 1969, and we agree no lack of a speedy trial was shown prior to March 17, 1967, the date the motion was filed. The record shows the accused was personally prejudiced by confinement, but shows no prejudice to his defense. The trial judge granted the motion for the following reasons: ⁴¹⁷ “THE COURT: Mr. Graham has constantly tried to put his client in the best position in order to bargain with the State.

Frankly, you may technically call the matter sub curia; it really wasn’t sub curia. I knew what I was trying to do right from the beginning and so indicated to both Mr. Howard and Mr. Graham what I felt should be done, and I do not find now, as I did not find then, any merit in the contention, and I believe my feeling at that point is buttressed by recent cases, but I would be something less than candid with you if I did not tell you the thing that now disturbs me — can court-appointed counsel, which Mr. Graham was, because I appointed him, can court-appointed counsel against the desires of his client forestall a speedy trial in order to attempt to bargain with the State? I am stuck with this problem. This is the thing that worries me.” “THE COURT: Of course, appropros [sic] of your remarks and the first communication I had from Mr. Oglesby which was the first of this year requesting