Duff v. State

182 A.2d 349, 229 Md. 126, 1962 Md. LEXIS 531
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedJune 15, 1962
Docket[No. 330, September Term, 1961.]
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 182 A.2d 349 (Duff v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Duff v. State, 182 A.2d 349, 229 Md. 126, 1962 Md. LEXIS 531 (Md. 1962).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A jury found appellant guilty under all three counts of two indictments, tried together, the first charging assault with *127 intent to murder and assault and battery, and the second, carrying a concealed weapon. He was sentenced generally to ten years in the Maryland Penitentiary upon the two counts of the first indictment. Sentence under the second indictment was suspended. In this appeal from both judgments the sole contention is that the sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and Articles 16 and 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.

The record shows that after an altercation in which each pushed the other, appellant drew a pistol from his pocket and, while the unarmed victim was moving away from him, shot him twice in the arm and attempted to shoot him four more times, the cartridges misfiring.

Assault with intent to murder carries a possible sentence under Art. 27, § 12, Code (1957), of two to fifteen years, and assault and battery, a common-law offense, carries no specific penalty, but is subject to the limitation imposed by the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment contained in the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Burley v. State, 226 Md. 94 (1901).

While appellant concedes that the sentence imposed is within the maximum provided by law, he argues that it is “out of line with sentences imposed in other similar cases.” He referred us to no other cases, however. Without unnecessary elaboration, it has repeatedly been held by this Court that any sentence within the limit prescribed by law is valid and hence does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of constitutional protections, Ridley v. State, 228 Md. 281 (1962); Martin v. State, 227 Md. 407 (1962), even though more lenient sentences have been imposed in other cases involving the same charge. Apple v. State, 190 Md. 661 (1948).

Judgment Affirmed.

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

Related

Thomas v. State
634 A.2d 1 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1993)
Jupiter v. State
616 A.2d 412 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1992)
Ireland v. State
529 A.2d 365 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1987)
Walker v. State
452 A.2d 1234 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1982)
Simms v. State
421 A.2d 957 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1980)
Lawrence v. State
237 A.2d 81 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1968)
Charles v. State
228 A.2d 620 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1967)
Johnson v. State
207 A.2d 643 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1965)
Davis v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary
201 A.2d 672 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1964)
Duff v. Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary
200 A.2d 78 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1964)
Morrison v. State
198 A.2d 246 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1964)
Adair v. State
189 A.2d 618 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
182 A.2d 349, 229 Md. 126, 1962 Md. LEXIS 531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duff-v-state-md-1962.