Opinion
[H.C. No. 77, September Term, 1957.]
Decided March 6, 1958.
HABEAS CORPUS — Point Not Raised Below Not Considered on Application for Leave to Appeal from Denial of Writ. On an application for leave to appeal from a denial of a writ of habeas corpus, a point not raised below cannot be considered. p. 619
HABEAS CORPUS — Application for Leave to Appeal from Denial of Writ — Appointing Counsel to Represent Petitioner Where Application Granted. The Court of Appeals will consider appointing counsel on behalf of a petitioner who applies for leave to appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus where the application is granted, but in the instant proceeding petitioner assigned no sufficient reason why he was entitled to the writ. p. 619
HABEAS CORPUS — Guilty Plea Entered Without Petitioner's Consent. The entry of a plea of guilty, without the consent of the defendant, in the absence of an allegation that it was done without the knowledge of petitioner, or that he made his objections to the guilty plea known to the trial court, is no ground for a writ of habeas corpus. In the instant such proceeding, the docket entries showed that at the arraignment petitioner pleaded not guilty, but that his court-appointed counsel later withdrew this plea and entered a plea of guilty. Even on direct appeal, where the scope of review is far wider, defendant cannot object to the fact that his own attorney pleaded guilty for him, where defendant acquiesces in open court in such a plea, and if the point could not be raised on direct appeal, it cannot be raised on habeas corpus. pp. 619-620
HABEAS CORPUS — Pleading Not Guilty and Electing Jury Trial. A complaint that petitioner, charged with criminal offenses, pleaded not guilty and elected a jury trial was refuted by docket entries showing that he changed his plea to guilty. p. 620
HABEAS CORPUS — Trial by Jury — Denial of. A claim of a denial of a trial by jury may not be raised on habeas corpus. p. 620
HABEAS CORPUS — Conspiracy Between Defense Counsel and State's Attorney to Induce Petitioner to Confess to Crime. A mere allegation of collusion between defense counsel and the State's Attorney, without more, is not a sufficient reason to issue a writ of habeas corpus. In the instant proceeding, where petitioner alleged that his court-appointed attorney and the State's Attorney conspired to induce him to confess to the crimes with which he was charged, he had an opportunity to complain to the trial court, but he did not, and he alleged no facts to support his charge. p. 620
HABEAS CORPUS — Youth, Ignorance and Lack of Education. Where petitioner alleged that he was young, ignorant and uneducated when he was tried and convicted of criminal offenses, in the absence of an allegation that the State, or anyone representing it, took advantage of his ignorance or lack of education to deprive him of any fundamental rights, the mere claim alone was no reason for granting a writ of habeas corpus. It was also noted that, although he was only fourteen years of age when convicted and sentenced, since the two major offenses with which he was charged (rape and assault with intent to rape) were both punishable by death or life imprisonment, it was not even necessary for the juvenile court to waive jurisdiction before he could be prosecuted for such offenses. Code of Public Local Laws of Prince George's County (1953 Ed.), Sec. 926 (a) 5. pp. 620-621
J.E.B.
Decided March 6, 1958.
Habeas corpus proceeding by Russell Savoy against the Warden of the Maryland House of Correction. From a refusal of the writ, petitioner applied for leave to appeal.
Application denied, with costs.
Reporter's Note: Certiorari denied, 356 U.S. 963.
Before BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
On October 3, 1957, Judge Anselm Sodaro, of the Baltimore City Court, denied the petition of Russell Savoy for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner has applied to this Court for leave to appeal.
The petitioner was convicted of rape, assault with intent to rape and assault and battery in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County (Marbury, J.) and was sentenced to the Maryland House of Correction for a period of twenty years.
The petitioner contends that he is unlawfully imprisoned and is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus: (i) because his court-appointed counsel entered a plea of guilty without his consent; (ii) because his attorney and the State's Attorney induced him to confess his guilt when "both * * * [knew] full well that the rape was committed by * * * [his] uncle who was an adult"; (iii) because he pleaded not guilty and elected a trial by jury; and (iv) because, when he changed his plea from not guilty to guilty, he was only fourteen years old, uneducated and ignorant of his right to insist upon a trial by jury.
In a paper writing filed in this Court, entitled "Supplement and Amendment to Papers Already Filed", the petitioner assigns an additional reason why the writ should be issued, which was not set forth in the petition denied by Judge Sodaro, to the effect that when he pleaded guilty and was sentenced "there was no provision for a destitute defendant to obtain a new trial or an appellate review by this Court". This point was not raised below and we will not consider it here. Roberts v. Warden, 211 Md. 639, 126 A.2d 857 (1956). Even if the allegation were properly before us, it would avail the petitioner nothing. Not only does he fail to state that he was indigent or that indigency prevented him from perfecting a new trial or an appeal, but he failed to allege that he sought either a new trial or an appellate review. The petitioner also requested this Court to appoint counsel to represent him upon this application for leave to appeal from the denial of the writ of habeas corpus. He was advised by the Clerk of this Court that we would consider appointing counsel on his behalf should this application for leave to appeal be granted. But the petitioner has assigned no sufficient reason why he is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus.
(i) and (iii). Entry of plea without consent — Change of plea from not guilty to guilty: The entry of a plea of guilty, without the consent of the defendant, absent an allegation that it was done without the knowledge of the petitioner, or that he made his objections to the guilty plea known to the trial court, is not grounds for a writ of habeas corpus. The docket entries show that when the petitioner was arraigned on April 14, 1949, he entered a plea of not guilty, but on May 6, 1949, his counsel appointed by the court withdrew this plea and entered a plea of guilty. In Banks v. State, 203 Md. 488, 102 A.2d 267 (1954), an appeal from a conviction in a criminal court, in which a similar objection was raised, we said, at p. 497: "The defendant in a criminal case cannot object to the fact that his own attorney pleaded guilty for him where the defendant acquiesced in open court in such plea." If the point could not be raised on direct appeal, where the scope of review is far wider, it cannot be raised on application for a writ of habeas corpus. Cumberland v. Warden, 205 Md. 646, 109 A.2d 66 (1954), cert. den., 348 U.S. 929 (1955); Wagner v. Warden, 205 Md. 648, 109 A.2d 118 (1954); Roberts v. Warden, 206 Md. 246, 111 A.2d 597 (1955). The docket entries contradict the petitioner's contention that he pleaded not guilty and elected a jury trial, but the significance of this allegation is not apparent and we cannot surmise what he meant. Moreover, the docket entries showing that he changed his plea to guilty are a sufficient rebuttal of his contention. As we have said repeatedly a claim of a denial of a trial by jury may not be raised on habeas corpus. Canter v. Warden, 211 Md. 643, 127 A.2d 139 (1956), cert. den., 353 U.S. 913 (1957).
(ii). Allegation of conspiracy between counsel and State's Attorney: In this case the petitioner alleges no facts to support his statement that his counsel and the State's Attorney conspired to induce him to confess the crime. We have held repeatedly that mere allegation of collusion without more is not a sufficient reason to issue a writ of habeas corpus. Roberts v. Warden, supra; Obenstine v. Warden, 198 Md. 648, 80 A.2d 610 (1951). Besides, the petitioner had an opportunity to complain to the court but did not.
(iv). Allegation of youth, ignorance and lack of education: Although the petitioner alleges that he was young, ignorant and uneducated when he was tried and convicted, he does not state that the State, or anyone representing it, took advantage of his ignorance or lack of education to deprive him of any of his fundamental rights. Absent such an allegation the mere statement is not a reason for granting the writ. The petitioner, even though he was only fourteen when he was convicted and sentenced, was subject to prosecution for both common law and statutory rape as well as assault with intent to rape and assault and battery. Since the two major offenses with which he was charged — rape and assault with intent to rape — were both punishable by death or life imprisonment, it was not even necessary for the juvenile court to waive jurisdiction before the petitioner could be prosecuted for such offenses. See Code of P.L.L. of Prince George's County (1953 ed.), sec. 926 (a) 5, which is comparable to the provisions of Code (1951), Art. 26, § 51(e).
Application denied, with costs.