239 A.2d 599
No. 105, September Term, 1967.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.
Decided March 18, 1968.
APPEAL — Waiver Of Contentions Not Raised Below. Appellant’s contention that the State should not have been allowed to introduce evidence pertaining to his prior narcotics conviction until he had been found guilty of the current offense, not having been raised below, was not properly before the Court of Special Appeals on appeal. Rule 1085. p. 388
Even if appellant had objected below, it would have been to no avail, since he had elected to be tried concurrently under Rule
Page 387
713 and, therefore, had waived his right, even his constitutional right, to object. p. 388
Decided March 18, 1968.
Appeal from the Criminal Court of Baltimore (CULLEN, J.).
Woodrow Williams, Jr., was convicted in a non-jury trial of violating the narcotics laws and of being a subsequent offender, and, from the judgment entered thereon, he appeals.
Affirmed.
The cause was argued before MURPHY, C.J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH, and THOMPSON, JJ.
John R. Hargrove for appellant.
Alfred J. O’Ferrall, III, Assistant Attorney General, with whom were Francis B. Burch, Attorney General, Charles E. Moylan, Jr., State’s Attorney for Baltimore City, and James B. Dudley, Assistant State’s Attorney for Baltimore City, on the brief, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Woodrow Williams, Jr., the appellant, was convicted of violating the narcotics laws and of being a subsequent offender, in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, Judge James K. Cullen presiding without a jury.
On October 20, 1966, Williams was arrested at the Trailways Bus Station in Baltimore by an officer of the narcotics unit of the Baltimore City Police Department on the basis of an outstanding warrant for burglary. The police officer searched the appellant and found heroin and narcotics paraphernalia. On January 6, 1967 Williams elected, pursuant to Maryland Rule 713, to be tried concurrently for the narcotics violation and for being a subsequent offender.
His only complaint on appeal is that the State should not have been allowed to introduce evidence pertaining to his prior narcotics conviction until he had been found guilty of the current offense.
Page 388
This complaint was not raised below and is not properly before this Court under Maryland Rule 1085, Boone v. State, 2 Md. App. 80, 233 A.2d 476. See also Maryland Rule 522 d (2), Gaudio v. State, 1 Md. App. 455, 230 A.2d 700. Even if Williams had objected below, it would have been to no avail because he had elected to be tried concurrently under Maryland Rule 713; and therefore he had waived his right, even his constitutional right, to object, see Gaudio, supra. Williams relies heavily on Lane v. Warden,[1] 320 F.2d 179 (4th Cir. 1963) which has been clearly overruled by Spencer v. Texas,[2] 385 U.S. 554, 87 S.Ct. 648, 17 L.Ed.2d 606 (1967).
Judgment affirmed.