Opinion
[No. 327, September Term, 1964.]
Decided June 25, 1965.
ROGUES AND VAGABONDS — Evidence Ample To Support Conviction — Question Was Whether Appellant Was Apprehended Under Circumstances From Which "An Intent [By Appellant] May Be Presumed [That He Intended] Feloniously To Break And Enter Into Any Dwelling House." p. 692
CRIMINAL LAW — Court-Appointed Counsel Made An Earnest And Sincere Effort To Obtain Reversal But Appeal Was Hopeless. p. 692
S.K.S.
Decided June 25, 1965.
Appeal from the Criminal Court of Baltimore (JONES, J.).
Lorenzo E. Plater was convicted of being a rogue and vagabond in Baltimore City, by the trial court, sitting without a jury, and from the judgment entered thereon, he appeals.
Judgment and sentence affirmed.
Submitted to PRESCOTT, C.J., and HORNEY, MARBURY, OPPENHEIMER and BARNES, JJ.
Submitted on brief by Bernard A. Greenberg for appellant.
Submitted on brief by Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General, Jon F. Oster, Assistant Attorney General, Charles E. Moylan, Jr. and John D. Hackett, State's Attorney and Assistant State's Attorney, respectively, for Baltimore City, for appellee.
Appellant was indicted and convicted under Code (1957), Article 27, § 490, in the Criminal Court of Baltimore by a judge, sitting without a jury.
The sole question for determination is whether appellant was apprehended under circumstances from which "an intent [by appellant] may be presumed [that he intended] feloniously to break and enter into any dwelling house."
We have carefully examined the evidence adduced by the State below — the appellant offered none — and hold that it was ample to support the finding of the trial court. Bergen v. State, 234 Md. 394; Wright v. State, 222 Md. 242; Martin v. State, 203 Md. 66.
Court-appointed counsel for the appellant made an earnest and sincere effort to obtain a reversal of his client's conviction, but, because of the State's evidence, appellant's appeal was hopeless.
Judgment and sentence affirmed.