PLUCKETT v. STATE, 234 Md. 536 (1964)

200 A.2d 74

PLUCKETT, ETC. v. STATE

[No. 308, September Term, 1963.]Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Decided May 4, 1964.

ROBBERY — Where Prosecuting Witness, At Trial, Positively Identified Defendant As Offender, Without Equivocation, This Was Sufficient To Warrant The Conviction If Believed, As It Evidently Was, By Trier Of Facts (The Court) — No Unfairness Found In Conduct Of Lineup At Which Prosecuting Witness Also Identified Defendant. p. 537

Decided May 4, 1964.

Appeal from the Criminal Court of Baltimore (GRADY, J.).

Walter Pluckett, Jr., alias Walter Puckett, Jr., was convicted

Page 537

of robbery, by the trial court, sitting without a jury, and from the judgment entered thereon, he appeals.

Affirmed.

The cause was submitted to BRUNE, C.J., and HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.

Submitted on brief by J. Joseph Curran, Jr., for the appellant.

Submitted on brief by Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General, Robert F. Sweeney, Assistant Attorney General, William J. O’Donnell, State’s Attorney for Baltimore City, and Stanley Cohen, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is devoid of merit. Appellant says the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction of robbery, because of his identification only by the prosecuting witness. This witness, at the trial, positively identified appellant as the offender, without equivocation. This was sufficient to warrant the conviction if believed, as it evidently was, by the trier of facts (the court). Appellant also makes a mild suggestion that his identification by the prosecuting witness in a lineup was made under unfair conditions. A careful examination reveals no such unfairness.

Judgment affirmed.