Frazier v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Frazier v. State

253 A.2d 918, 7 Md. App. 165, 1969 Md. App. LEXIS 313

CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

DecidedJune 6, 1969

DocketNo. 418

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 253 A.2d 918 (Frazier 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

Frazier v. State, 253 A.2d 918, 7 Md. App. 165, 1969 Md. App. LEXIS 313 (Md. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The appellant, Douglas Frazier, was convicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, Judge Dulany Foster sitting without a jury, of storehouse breaking with intent to steal goods of the value of $100. or more therefrom. He was sentenced to serve five years under the jurisdiction of the Department of Correction.

At trial the appellant elected to testify. On cross-examination the State, without objection, questioned him about his past convictions. Upon this appeal the appellant contends that “this is reversible error as clearly enunciated in Burgett v. Texas, 389 U. S. 109 (1967) because it was not shown that appellant was represented by counsel at the time of these prior convictions.” No objection having been raised at trial, the issue is not properly before this Court on appeal. Maryland Rule 1085. Moreover, the law in Maryland is clear that when a defendant takes the stand in his own defense he may be cross-examined regarding his criminal record. Minor v. State, 6 Md. App. 82, 88 (1969). Burgett v. Texas, supra, is not applicable since Burgett’s prior conviction was presumptively void, which is not the situation here. See Suggs v. State, 6 Md. App. 231, 235-36 (1969).

The appellant also contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. For the reasons set forth in Turner v. State, 5 Md. App. 584, 586-87 (1968), we decline to review the issue of competency of appellant’s counsel, that issue not having been tried and decided below. Maryland Rule 1085. Of course, the appellant is not precluded from raising the point in other procedures available to him.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The appellant, Douglas Frazier, was convicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, Judge Dulany Foster sitting without a jury, of storehouse breaking with intent to steal goods of the value of $100. or more therefrom. He was sentenced to serve five years under the jurisdiction of the Department of Correction.

At trial the appellant elected to testify. On cross-examination the State, without objection, questioned him about his past convictions. Upon this appeal the appellant contends that “this is reversible error as clearly enunciated in Burgett v. Texas, 389 U. S. 109 (1967) because it was not shown that appellant was represented by counsel at the time of these prior convictions.” No objection having been raised at trial, the issue is not properly before this Court on appeal. Maryland Rule 1085. Moreover, the law in Maryland is clear that when a defendant takes the stand in his own defense he may be cross-examined regarding his criminal record. Minor v. State, 6 Md. App. 82, 88 (1969). Burgett v. Texas, supra, is not applicable since Burgett’s prior conviction was presumptively void, which is not the situation here. See Suggs v. State, 6 Md. App. 231, 235-36 (1969).

The appellant also contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. For the reasons set forth in Turner v. State, 5 Md. App. 584, 586-87 (1968), we decline to review the issue of competency of appellant’s counsel, that issue not having been tried and decided below. Maryland Rule 1085. Of course, the appellant is not precluded from raising the point in other procedures available to him.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.2d 918, 7 Md. App. 165, 1969 Md. App. LEXIS 313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frazier-v-state-mdctspecapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack