Opinion
[H.C. No. 16, September Term, 1957.]
Decided October 28, 1957.
HABEAS CORPUS — Evidence — Sufficiency of. The sufficiency of the evidence can be reviewed only on direct appeal, and not on habeas corpus. p. 615
HABEAS CORPUS — Double Jeopardy. A claim of double jeopardy cannot be raised on habeas corpus. p. 616
HABEAS CORPUS — Arrest — Irregularity of. The irregularity of an arrest cannot be inquired into on habeas corpus after trial and conviction. p. 616
HABEAS CORPUS — Statements Given Police under Duress. An allegation that statements were given to the police under duress goes to the voluntary character of a statement or confession, and can be raised on appeal, but not on habeas corpus. Further, it was not shown in this proceeding that a statement or confession was used against petitioner. p. 616
HABEAS CORPUS — Counsel — Ineptness or Incompetence of. A mere allegation that an attorney is inept or incompetent is not sufficient on habeas corpus, where petitioner had an opportunity to complain to the court about his attorney and did not do so. p. 616
HABEAS CORPUS — Promise That Charges Would Be Dropped If Petitioner Turned State's Evidence. A claim that petitioner was promised by his attorneys and the police that, if he turned State's evidence, the charges against him would be dropped, cannot be raised on habeas corpus. Furthermore, in this proceeding petitioner did not allege that he did turn State's evidence, and it appeared that he did not do so. p. 616
HABEAS CORPUS — New Trial — Failure of Attorneys to File Motion for. An allegation that petitioner asked his attorneys for a new trial, but they filed no motion for one, cannot be raised on habeas corpus. p. 616
HABEAS CORPUS — Evidence — Admitting Inadmissible. A claim that inadmissible evidence was admitted against petitioner cannot be reviewed on habeas corpus. p. 616
CRIMINAL LAW — Accessory to Robbery with Deadly Weapon — 20-Year Sentences Within Statutory Limit. The maximum penalty for conviction of the crime of robbery with a deadly weapon, or accessory thereto, is 20 years in the Maryland Penitentiary. Code (1951), Art. 27, § 574A. Therefore, assuming the point could be considered on habeas corpus, sentences of 20 years to run consecutively in each of three cases, wherein petitioner was found guilty of being an accessory to robbery with a deadly weapon, were not excessive, because they fell within that limit. p. 617
HABEAS CORPUS — Right of Appeal — Allegations Insufficient to Show Denial of, or Interference with. Allegations by petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus that he asked the trial court for an appeal from his conviction on criminal charges, but was told by the trial judge that the matter was up to the Parole Board, were too vague to support the denial of, or interference with, the right of appeal, and there was no allegation that an effort for an appeal was made within the time allowed by law. Although petitioner claimed that he had a letter from the trial judge to support his allegations, no such letter was filed in the case, and the docket entries showed the entry of no appeal. p. 617
J.E.B.
Decided October 28, 1957.
Habeas corpus proceeding by Philip R. Rice against the Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary. From a refusal of the writ, petitioner applied for leave to appeal.
Application denied, with costs.
Reporter's Note: Certiorari denied, Supreme Court of United States, March 3, 1958.
Before BRUNE, C.J., and COLLINS, HENDERSON, HAMMOND and PRESCOTT, JJ.
This is an application for leave to appeal by Philip R. Rice from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus.
Petitioner was found guilty by Judge Carter in the Criminal Court of Baltimore on December 14, 1956, in three cases of accessory to a crime of robbery with a deadly weapon. He was sentenced to twenty years in each case to run consecutively.
Petitioner claims there was no evidence to connect him with the crime charged, and that he was "framed" by the police and did not have a fair trial. It has been stated many times by this Court that the sufficiency of the evidence can be reviewed only on direct appeal and not on habeas corpus. Cunningham v. Warden, 213 Md. 642, 131 A.2d 394.
Petitioner further claims that he was placed in double jeopardy. This contention is apparently based on the fact that he had been previously convicted of another crime. This does not constitute double jeopardy. Even if it did, it cannot be raised on habeas corpus. Hicks v. Warden, 213 Md. 625, 130 A.2d 761, and cases there cited.
Petitioner alleges that he was illegally arrested. The irregularity of an arrest cannot be inquired into on habeas corpus after a trial and conviction. Jackson v. Warden, 211 Md. 599, 125 A.2d 840; Price v. Warden, 212 Md. 661, 129 A.2d 120.
Petitioner further claims that he was questioned by several police officers for several days. They would not let him call an attorney and he was mistreated by them. The allegation that statements were given to the police under duress is one that goes to the voluntary character of a statement or confession and can be raised on appeal but not on habeas corpus. White v. Warden, 211 Md. 623, 126 A.2d 294. Furthermore, it is not shown in this case that a confession or statement was used against him.
Petitioner also complains that his court appointed attorneys did nothing for him at the trial. There is no allegation that he made any objection to the court about his trial. A mere allegation that an attorney is inept or incompetent is not sufficient on habeas corpus where petitioner had an opportunity to complain to the court about his attorney and did not do so. Canter v. Warden, 211 Md. 643, 127 A.2d 139.
Petitioner further claims that he was promised by his attorneys and the police that, if he turned State's evidence, the charges against him would be dropped. He does not allege that he turned State's evidence and it appears that he did not do so. Furthermore, this matter cannot be raised on habeas corpus.
Petitioner further alleges that he asked his attorneys for a new trial and that they filed no such motion. This cannot be raised on habeas corpus. Obenstine v. Warden, 198 Md. 648, 80 A.2d 610; Bowen v. Warden, 200 Md. 661, 90 A.2d 174.
Petitioner also says that inadmissible evidence was admitted against him. This cannot be reviewed on habeas corpus. Harley v. Warden, 213 Md. 652, 132 A.2d 129.
Petitioner also claims that his sentence was excessive. Assuming, without deciding, that the alleged excessiveness of sentence can be considered on habeas corpus, under the provisions of Code, 1951, Article 27, § 574A, the maximum penalty for conviction of the crime of robbery with a deadly weapon, or accessory thereto, is twenty years in the Maryland Penitentiary. The sentences here were within that limit. Hart v. Warden, 213 Md. 658, 132 A.2d 592.
Petitioner also contends that he asked the trial court for an appeal but was told by the trial judge that the matter was up to the Parole Board. He also claims that he has a letter to that effect from the trial judge. No such letter is filed in this case, and, according to the docket entries of the trial of the cases below, no such appeal was entered. These allegations are too vague to support the denial of, or interference with, the right of appeal, nor is there any allegation that any effort for an appeal was made within the time allowed by law. Cf. Beard v. Warden, 211 Md. 658, 128 A.2d 426.
Application denied, with costs.