Terry v. State

Prescott, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. As far as this Court is concerned, this appeal is another frivolous one brought by a convicted and self-acknowledged ³¹⁶ recidivistic criminal, the costs of which (required by authority higher than this Court) must be borne by the State of Maryland. Appellant was convicted of robbery in the Criminal Court of Baltimore. He raises several questions, all of which will be answered, but not in the sequence they are set forth in his brief.

The first two which we shall consider are of such paltry significance that his court-appointed counsel, quite rightfully in our opinion, pointed out that they were included in the brief only upon the insistence of the appellant. The first one reads: “Were the1 defendant’s legal and constitutional rights violated by an unlawful search and seizure?” The question was not raised below, and, therefore, is not properly before us. Maryland Rule 885. In addition, an examination of the trial record discloses no allusion to a search of appellant or any seizure of his property.

No tangible evidence was offered at the trial. It is obvious that the claim is utterly devoid of merit, and it illustrates how far transgressors of our criminal law have been encouraged by decisions elsewhere to reach, at State expense, for any possible straw that might relieve them of the requirement of paying the penalty for their offenses against honest citizens, in this instance the owner of a food market. The second contention insisted upon by appellant was that his court-appointedi counsel was inept (nearly all lawyers are now considered incompetent by those accused of crime, except those who keep the defendants’ “feet upon the bricks”). Appellant did not complain to the trial court of the conduct of his counsel; hence, under our previous decisions, he has no just complaint here.

Brown v. State, 237 Md. 492 ; Stevens v. State, 230 Md. 47 . In addition, an examination of the record shows affirmatively that the defense was vigorously advocated; appellant’s counsel did all that any lawyer reasonably could have been expected to do in his behalf. Appellant was convicted, as we shall point out below, by the overpowering strength of the State’s evidence. Appellant also contends that an oral confession made by him to the police was improperly admitted into evidence.

This claim, like the others, is lacking in substance. He was arrested on ³¹⁷ August 2, 1964, under the authority of an arrest warrant issued on July 13th, the validity of which is not challenged. He was questioned on the same day by Sgt. Tabeling, in the presence of one, other officer, from 2:05 p.m. until 4:49 p.m., when he made the statement.

Sgt. Tabeling testified that no threats, force, promises, or inducements of any kind were used to obtain the confession, and it was given freely and voluntarily by appellant, and, at no time did he request counsel. No