Dinkins v. State, No. 59 (Adv.), September Term, 1976 — Court of Appeals of Maryland (Decided August 10, 1976)

Factual and Procedural Background

James Thomas Dinkins was convicted by a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore (Ross, J.) of armed robbery, grand larceny, unlawfully using a handgun in a crime of violence, and of unlawfully carrying a gun on his person. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed those convictions. The Court of Appeals granted a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Special Appeals. The Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and ordered judgment affirmed with costs and mandate to issue forthwith.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Dinkins v. State, 29 Md. App. 577, 349 A.2d 676 (1976)	Decision of the Court of Special Appeals addressing the convictions under review; relied upon after determination that no error of law appears.	The Court of Appeals adopted the comprehensive opinion of Chief Judge Orth in that case and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Special Appeals' decision. In accordance with Maryland Rule 811 d 3, the Court determined that no error of law appears in the decision of the Court of Special Appeals. Having so determined, the Court adopted the comprehensive opinion of Chief Judge Orth (the opinion of the Court of Special Appeals) and affirmed the lower appellate court's judgment. The opinion is a per curiam disposition and contains a brief explanation limited to the adoption of the lower court's analysis after finding no legal error.

Holding and Implications

Judgment affirmed with costs; mandate to issue forthwith.

Direct consequences: The convictions of James Thomas Dinkins for armed robbery, grand larceny, unlawfully using a handgun in a crime of violence, and unlawfully carrying a gun on his person, as affirmed by the Court of Special Appeals, remain affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Costs were awarded and the mandate was ordered to issue immediately.

No broader precedent was announced by this per curiam opinion beyond the adoption of the Court of Special Appeals' opinion; the Court stated it found no error of law and adopted the comprehensive opinion of Chief Judge Orth.

Show full summary ...

DINKINS v. STATE OF MARYLAND

PER CURIAM:

Having granted a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Special Appeals in Dinkins v. State, 29 Md. App. 577, 349 A.2d 676 (1976), and in accordance with Maryland Rule 811 d 3 having determined that no error of law appears in the decision, this Court adopts the comprehensive opinion of Chief Judge Orth (now an Associate Judge of this Court) in that case and affirms the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.

Judgment affirmed with costs; mandate to issue forthwith.

DINKINS v. STATE