Pennington v. State
299 Md. 23, 472 A.2d 447 (1984)
RODOWSKY, Judge, dissenting
I respectfully dissent for reasons given in my dissenting opinion in Pennington v. State, 299 Md. 23, 472 A.2d 447 (1984).
Bernard McFADDEN v. STATE of Maryland
No. 10, Sept. Term, 1984
Court of Appeals of Maryland
March 15, 1984
472 A.2d 463
Carmina Szunyog, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore (Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, on answer to petition), for appellee.
Submitted to MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, DAVIDSON, RODOWSKY and COUCH, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner and three co-defendants were charged in the Criminal Court of Baltimore (now the Circuit Court for Baltimore City) with attempted robbery and unlawfully carrying a handgun. The charges against the four defendants were based upon a single incident in which all four allegedly participated.
The 180-day period for trying the case under
“THE COURT: Your objection is noted, but it comes down to weighing the public interest in administering justice efficiently against the possible prejudice to your client from the change in trial date. From what I have heard here, it would seem clear to me that these cases are not ones which should be severed. They should go forward together and thereby reap the benefit of the efficiency of trying the case only once, only bringing the witnesses to the trial once against all four defendants rather than have piecemeal trials, and I think that is a very important factor to be considered. I think that outweighs any possible prejudice to your client resulting from the delay. Since the other three defendants are in accord with the postponement, I am going to find here that good cause exists to require the four defendants to be tried at the same time and therefore good cause exists within the meaning of
Maryland Rule 746 for the change of trial date, so over your objection I am going to grant the change in trial date.”
On June 9, 1981, the trial was postponed until June 16, 1981, “due to a family tragedy involving counsel for a co-defendant.”
After the petitioner‘s motion to dismiss was overruled, the case proceeded to trial on June 16, 1981. The petitioner was
“Did the trial court err in failing to dismiss the charges for violation of the speedy trial provisions of
Article 27, § 591 , andMaryland Rule 746 ?”
In the petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner argues that the unavailability of a court on March 26, 1981, did not as a matter of law constitute good cause for the postponement of the trial on that date. A virtually identical argument, however, was recently rejected by us in State v. Frazier, 298 Md. 422, 461-462, 470 A.2d 1269 (1984).
Alternatively, the petitioner argues that his co-defendants’ preference to have the case tried on June 9, 1981, and the State‘s desire that all four defendants be tried together, did not constitute good cause to postpone petitioner‘s trial beyond the 180-day deadline which expired on April 13, 1981. The petitioner contends that the administrative judge should have refused to postpone petitioner‘s trial beyond April 13th, thereby automatically effecting a severance. In our view, however, this was a matter within the discretion of the administrative judge, and we perceive no clear abuse of discretion. State v. Frazier, supra, 298 Md. at 454, 470 A.2d 1269; Satchell v. State, 299 Md. 42, 472 A.2d 457 (1984), filed today.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. PETITIONER TO PAY COSTS.
DAVIDSON, Judge, dissenting:
I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in State v. Frazier, 298 Md. 422, 464, 470 A.2d 1269, 1291 (1984).