Buckley v. State
2 Md.App. 508, 235 A.2d 754, 1967 Md. App. LEXIS 292 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The offense of being a 'rogue and vagabond' with intent to steal merges into the greater offense of breaking and entering with intent to steal when both charges arise from the same incident, precluding separate convictions and sentences. Additionally, the State bears the burden of affirmatively proving a building's non-dwelling status to secure a conviction for breaking into a 'warehouse' or similar structure.
Facts:
- Buckley broke into a building at 5803 Bellona Avenue, which was possessed by the Alpha Sigma Chi fraternity.
- The Bellona Avenue building was used exclusively as a meeting and recreational facility, containing no beds, sleeping facilities, or a kitchen.
- Buckley also entered a building at 4713 Falls Road, which was occupied by the Phi Beta Omega fraternity.
- The only evidence describing the Falls Road building was testimony from one witness who characterized it as 'a residence,' with no other details about its use or occupancy.
- Separately, Buckley was apprehended while in possession of recently stolen articles.
- The stolen articles in Buckley's possession had been taken from an apartment located at 830 Argonne Drive.
Procedural Posture:
- Buckley was charged in three consolidated indictments (Nos. 1222, 1223, and 1225) in the Criminal Court of Baltimore.
- After a bench trial, the trial court judge found Buckley guilty on counts of breaking and entering a warehouse, being a rogue and vagabond, and receiving stolen goods across the various indictments.
- The trial court imposed consecutive sentences for each guilty verdict.
- Buckley (appellant) appealed the judgments of the trial court to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Maryland law, does a conviction for being a 'rogue and vagabond' merge into a conviction for breaking and entering with intent to steal when both charges stem from the same criminal act?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, a conviction for being a 'rogue and vagabond' merges into a conviction for breaking and entering with intent to steal when both charges stem from the same criminal act. The court held that it is a plain error to convict and sentence a defendant for both offenses. For the Bellona Avenue property, the breaking and entering conviction was affirmed because evidence showed it was not a dwelling, thus qualifying as a 'warehouse' under the statute. However, the accompanying 'rogue and vagabond' conviction was vacated because it merged into the greater offense. For the Falls Road property, the breaking and entering conviction was reversed because the State failed to meet its burden of proving the building was a 'warehouse' or other non-dwelling. The court found that a single witness calling it 'a residence' was insufficient evidence. However, the 'rogue and vagabond' conviction related to the Falls Road property was affirmed because that statute applies to any building, and the failure of the greater charge meant there was nothing for it to merge into. Finally, the conviction for receiving stolen goods was affirmed based on the principle that the unexplained possession of recently stolen items is sufficient evidence for a conviction.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of Maryland's merger doctrine for common law and statutory offenses, reinforcing the principle that a defendant should not be punished twice for conduct that is part of a single criminal act. It establishes that a 'rogue and vagabond' charge is a lesser-included offense of breaking and entering with intent to steal. The case also highlights the strict burden of proof on the prosecution to prove every element of a statutory crime, particularly the specific character of a building in a breaking and entering case. This precedent guides lower courts on when to merge convictions and reminds prosecutors of the evidentiary requirements for statutory burglary charges.
