Summary
In Campbell v. State of Maryland (1963), 231 Md. 21, 188 A.2d 282, defendant was convicted in the criminal court of Baltimore of armed robbery and carrying a deadly weapon, and appealed.
Summary of this case from State v. McNeilOpinion
[No. 174, September Term, 1962.]
Decided February 19, 1963.
CRIMINAL LAW — Armed Robbery And Carrying Deadly Weapon — Non-Jury Cases — No Merit To Claim Of Insufficient Evidence To Convict — Trial Judge Was Entitled To Believe Testimony Of Three Witnesses Who Positively Identified Defendant, Rather Than Alibi Witness For Defendant. pp. 21-22
CRIMINAL LAW — Counsel For Indigent Defendant — Defendant Must Accept Court-Appointed Counsel, Unless He Desires To Present Own Defense, If No Substantial Reason Is Advanced For Replacing Counsel (And None Was In Present Case) — Point Also Plainly Waived By Defendant Here. p. 22
J.E.B.
Decided February 19, 1963.
Appeal from the Criminal Court of Baltimore (MANLEY, J.).
Edward H. Campbell was convicted of armed robbery and of carrying a deadly weapon, by the trial court, sitting without a jury, and from the judgments entered thereon, he appeals.
Affirmed.
The cause was argued before BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, HORNEY and SYBERT, JJ.
Morris Lee Kaplan, with whom was Michael Lee Kaplan on the brief, for the appellant.
Loring E. Hawes, Assistant Attorney General, with whom were Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General, William J. O'Donnell, State's Attorney for Baltimore City, and Joseph G. Koutz, Deputy State's Attorney, on the brief, for the appellee.
This record reveals no ground whatsoever to support appellant's claim of insufficiency of evidence to convict him of armed robbery and carrying a deadly weapon. Three witnesses positively identified him as one of two men who rifled the cash register in a restaurant at revolver point. The trial court in this non-jury case was entitled to believe them, rather than an alibi witness who placed appellant elsewhere. Maryland Rule 886; Knuckles v. State, 228 Md. 318.
Prior to his trial appellant requested the court to appoint another attorney in lieu of his court-appointed counsel, but, when asked whether there was any good reason for a change in lawyers, he replied: "That is all right." He now claims error in the refusal of his request. In the absence of any substantial reason for replacement of counsel (none was advanced here), an indigent defendant must accept counsel appointed by the court, unless he desires to present his own defense. Brown v. United States, 264 F.2d 363, 367 (D.C. Cir.); cf. Murray v. Director, 228 Md. 658, 660. But even if the question raised had any merit, it was plainly waived by appellant.
Judgments affirmed.