From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dodson v. Warden

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
Jan 30, 1970
261 A.2d 195 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1970)

Opinion

No. 127, September Term, 1969.

Decided January 30, 1970.

POST CONVICTION PROCEDURE — Bald Allegation — Waiver Of Allegations. Applicant's contention that he was "deprived of his Fourteenth Amendment rights" was a bald allegation unsupported in the record by any facts or reasons. p. 595

Applicant's contentions that he was precluded from changing his pleas to not guilty and that the judge sat in error at his trial for armed robbery were deemed to have been waived, where there was no showing of any special circumstances to excuse his failure previously to assert them or to rebut the statutory presumption of waiver. Code (1957), Art. 27, § 645A(c). p. 595

Application for leave to appeal from the Criminal Court of Baltimore (CULLEN, J.).

Donald Lee Dodson, a/k/a Donald Lee Dobson, instituted a third proceeding under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act, and, from a denial of relief, he applied for leave to appeal.

Application denied.

Before MURPHY, C.J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH, and THOMPSON, JJ.

Donald Lee Dodson pro se.

Francis B. Burch, Attorney General, and Charles E. Moylan, Jr., State's Attorney for Baltimore City, for respondent.


This is an application for leave to appeal from an order denying applicant's third petition for relief under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act.

The applicant was sentenced to a total of 140 years by Judge Joseph L. Carter in 1956, upon pleas of guilty in each of seven indictments for armed robbery.

Prior to filing the present petition, applicant had filed two petitions for writs of coram nobis, both of which were denied; two petitions for Post Conviction relief, both of which were denied and the respective applications for leave to appeal denied by the Court of Appeals of Maryland (see Dobson v. Warden, 220 Md. 689, cert. den., 362 U.S. 954, and Dobson v. Warden, 243 Md. 685); and a petition for writ of habeas corpus which was denied, as well as the application for leave to appeal from its denial (see Dobson v. Warden, 214 Md. 654, cert. den., 355 U.S. 966). In addition, he had filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland which was denied (see Dobson v. Warden, 188 F. Supp. 599) and his appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals was, likewise, dismissed. Dobson v. Warden, 284 F.2d 878, cert. den., 366 U.S. 969. In 1964, his sentences were commuted to a total of fifty years by the Honorable J. Millard Tawes, Governor of Maryland.

In his third petition, which is the subject of this application for leave to appeal, he contends (1) that since his guilty pleas were submitted at an arraignment (without counsel) before Judge Carter, he was precluded from thereafter changing his pleas to not guilty because Judge Carter, before whom he would have been tried, could not erase from his mind the guilty pleas previously entered; (2) that he was "deprived of his Fourteenth Amendment rights;" and (3) that it was error for Judge Carter to sit as a trial judge.

Counsel was subsequently appointed.

The second contention must be dismissed summarily since it is merely a bald allegation unsupported in the record before us by any facts or reasons. The first and third contentions must be deemed to have been waived since there has been no showing of any special circumstances to excuse his failure previously to assert them or to rebut the statutory presumption of waiver created by Md. Code, Art. 27, § 645A(c). See Jones v. Warden, 2 Md. App. 343.

Application denied.


Summaries of

Dodson v. Warden

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
Jan 30, 1970
261 A.2d 195 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1970)
Case details for

Dodson v. Warden

Case Details

Full title:DONALD LEE DODSON, A/K/A DONALD LEE DOBSON v . WARDEN, MARYLAND HOUSE OF…

Court:Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Date published: Jan 30, 1970

Citations

261 A.2d 195 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1970)
261 A.2d 195

Citing Cases

Reilly, v. Philadelphia Suburban Gas Electric Co.

A. M. Holding, of Holding Harvey, for appellee. — There was no proof of either express or constructive notice…

Curtis v. State

Id. at 322. However, in other opinions the Court of Special Appeals has adopted the same interpretation of §…