TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Buffington v. State

Buffington v. State, 187 A.2d 301 (Md. 1963)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Maryland · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 18, 1963
Docket
Nos. [No. 109, September Term, 1962.]
Judges
Bruñe, Hammond, Prescott, Marbury, Sybert
Citations
187 A.2d 301230 Md. 4231963 Md. LEXIS 537

Opinion — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

Appellant was indicted on five counts charging rape, assault with intent to rape, carnal knowledge of a child under 14, assault with intent to carnally know, and assault and battery. Appellant entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity, which pleas were withdrawn when the case was called for trial. The State thereupon abandoned all counts except the one charging carnal knowledge of a child under 14, to which appellant pleaded guilty. After the court explained to appellant the significance of this charge and the penalty therefor, extensive testimony was heard from prosecution and defense witnesses on the question of sentence, whereupon appellant was sentenced to 21 years in the Maryland Penitentiary. We are asked to review both the verdict and sentence.

The State has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, alleging appellant’s non-compliance with Maryland Rule 828 in that he did not print the material testimony and the judgment in his brief, both being stated to be necessary for the determina *425 tion of the questions presented. Non-compliance with Rule 828 is ordinarily sufficient ground for dismissal. In this case we find that the brief provides sufficient material for us to decide the questions raised. Therefore the motion to dismiss is denied.

Brown v. Fraley, 222 Md. 480 .

The contention that the trial court committed error in finding appellant guilty is without weight since appellant, who was represented by counsel, entered a plea of guilty. Therefore evidence to prove guilt was unnecessary and no error was committed; hence the conviction will not be reviewed on appeal.

Moyer v. State, 225 Md. 156, 158 .

Appellant’s other contention, that the sentence was excessive, is also without merit. The sentence imposed was one of the sentences provided in the statute (Code (1957), Art. 27, sec. 462), and in this State such a sentence will not be reviewed on appeal unless it comes within the narrow exception recognized in Reid v. State, 200 Md. 89, 92-93 , and this is not that case.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1963: 11964: 31967: 119632026peak 1964 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Gleaton v. State201 A.2d 353 (Md. 1964)
  2. Gans v. Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary196 A.2d 632 (Md. 1964)
  3. Gopshes v. State230 A.2d 475 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1967)
  4. Shipley v. State201 A.2d 773 (Md. 1964)
  5. Hanks v. Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary194 A.2d 445 (Md. 1963)

Most recent

  1. Gopshes v. State230 A.2d 475 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1967)
  2. Shipley v. State201 A.2d 773 (Md. 1964)
  3. Gleaton v. State201 A.2d 353 (Md. 1964)
  4. Gans v. Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary196 A.2d 632 (Md. 1964)
  5. Hanks v. Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary194 A.2d 445 (Md. 1963)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Brown v. Fraley, 161 A.2d 128 (Md. 1960) 57
Reid v. State, 88 A.2d 478 (Md. 1952) 34
Moyer v. State, 169 A.2d 409 (Md. 1961) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list