Cornwell v. State

232 A.2d 281, 1 Md. App. 576, 1967 Md. App. LEXIS 412
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland
DecidedAugust 2, 1967
Docket247, Initial Term, 1967
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 232 A.2d 281 (Cornwell v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Special Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cornwell v. State, 232 A.2d 281, 1 Md. App. 576, 1967 Md. App. LEXIS 412 (Md. Ct. App. 1967).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The Appellant, Charles Daniel Cornwell, was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County of burglary, robbery with a deadly weapon, and assault and battery. Sentences and judgments thereon were entered on June 27, 1966, and the Order for Appeal was filed on August 19, 1966.

The State, in its brief, has moved to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the Order for Appeal was not filed within the period prescribed by Maryland Rule 1012.

The Appellant contends that the time for appeal was extended by the trial judge when he learned that no timely appeal had been filed. There is no provision in the Maryland *578 Rules, or elsewhere, authorizing the lower court to extend the time within which an Order for Appeal to this Court shall be filed. Accordingly, the State’s Motion to Dismiss the Appeal will be granted in accordance with the provisions of Maryland Rule 1035 b 2.

We are mindful that a number of questions raised by the Appellant, such as incompetency of counsel, double jeopardy, perjured testimony and denial of due process, would require an evidentiary hearing and, therefore, could not properly be passed upon in this appeal.

Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is being granted without prejudice to the Appellant’s rights to pursue the remedies provided in the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act (Code (1957), Art. 27, Sec. 645 A) and any other legal remedies available to him.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ruby v. State
708 A.2d 1080 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1998)
Colao v. COUNTY COUNCIL OF PRINCE GEORGE'S CTY.
697 A.2d 96 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1997)
Creighton v. State
591 A.2d 561 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1991)
Michael v. State
584 A.2d 1317 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1991)
Commonwealth v. Brown
434 A.2d 838 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1981)
Johnson v. State
333 A.2d 37 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1975)
Thompson v. Giordano
295 A.2d 881 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1972)
Blackstone v. State
251 A.2d 255 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
232 A.2d 281, 1 Md. App. 576, 1967 Md. App. LEXIS 412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cornwell-v-state-mdctspecapp-1967.