State v. Ward

396 A.2d 1041 (1978)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The Circuit Court for Prince George's County dismissed an indictment returned against D. Harry Edward Brockman and David Victor Maness were charged with the premeditated murder of Gerald Joseph Godbout, Jr. on 28 April 1972, and were tried in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. Each pleaded guilty to and was convicted of the murder in the second degree under a plea bargain arrangement. D was indicted for various offenses relating to the murder. At the time of the dismissal of the indictment on 11 April 1978, only the third count remained. It charged D as an accessory before the fact of the murder of Godbout, alleged to have been committed by Brockman and Maness 'feloniously, willfully and of their deliberately premeditated malice aforethought.' It presented that D 'did unlawfully aid, counsel and procure the said . . . Brockman and . . . Maness to do and commit the said murder. . . .' The indictment as returned contained five counts presenting that D had committed offenses on or about 28 April 1972 relating to the murder of Godbout and the attempted murder of Dorothy Mae Ward. The first and second counts charged him with conspiring with Brockman, Maness and Jesse Stephens to murder, respectively, Dorothy Mae Ward and Godbout. The fourth count alleged that he 'did attempt to unlawfully, willfully and of his deliberately premeditated malice aforethought murder Dorothy Mae Ward. . . .' The fifth count asserted that he 'feloniously, willfully and of his deliberately premeditated malice aforethought, did murder [Godbout]. . . .' Tried before a jury, a nolle prosequi was entered as to the fourth and fifth counts, and he was found guilty under the first, second and third counts on 6 February 1975. A term of life imprisonment was imposed on each conviction, the sentences to run concurrently. The judgments were affirmed on direct appeal. D collaterally attacked the judgments under post-conviction procedures. He claimed that he had been denied effective representation of counsel because his attorney had failed to move for dismissal of the conspiracy charges on the ground that they were barred by limitations. He sought dismissal of the first and second counts of the indictment and a new trial on the third count. He prevailed in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, and in the Court of Special Appeals, which affirmed the post-conviction court's judgment upon grant of the State's application for leave to appeal. P appealed to the Court of Special Appeals. The Supreme Court of Maryland issued a writ of certiorari on its own motion before decision by the Court of Special Appeals.