Opinion
[H.C. No. 23, October Term, 1947.]
Decided February 18, 1948.
Habeas Corpus — Evidence Not Reviewable On — Application for Leave to Appeal — Alleging Perjury and Conspiracy Must Show Facts — Alleging Failure to Summons Witnesses But Not Alleging That Applicant Issued Summons, What Witnesses Would Testify, Nor Application For Continuance Should Be Denied.
The evidence in a criminal case cannot be reviewed in a habeas corpus proceeding. p. 745
Where, in an application for leave to appeal in a habeas corpus case, applicant alleges that he was convicted because of perjury and conspiracy, but no facts are shown that the State's officers used testimony known to be perjured or participated in any conspiracy to defraud applicant of his rights, the application on that ground will be denied. p. 745
Where a brief filed with such an application alleges that four of applicant's witnesses were not summoned but the application does not allege that he issued summons for his four witnesses, nor what they would have testified, nor an application for a continuance, so that he could have his witnesses summoned, the application on that ground will be denied. p. 745
Decided February 18, 1948.
Habeas corpus proceeding by Joseph Vernon Sembly against the Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary. From the refusal of a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner files application for leave to appeal.
Application denied.
Before MARBURY, C.J., DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON, and MARKELL, JJ.
This is an application for leave to appeal from refusal of a writ of habeas corpus.
The Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary states petitioner was received at that institution "on April 10, 1947 with a sentence of twenty years for robbery with deadly weapon (2 cases)." He applied to Judge France, sitting in the Baltimore City Court, for a writ. In his petition he charged that he was convicted because of perjury and conspiracy. The writ was denied, and he appeals here.
His brief, filed here, is an argument to show that the facts of the case were insufficient to support a conviction; and the point is made that four of his witnesses were not summoned in court.
The evidence in a criminal case cannot be reviewed in a habeas corpus proceeding. Blundon v. Warden of the Md. House of Correction, 190 Md. 740, 60 A.2d 524. The petition does not allege that he issued summons for his four witnesses; nor what they would have stated had they testified; nor that he applied to the court for a continuance, so that he could have his witnesses summoned; Walker v. Warden of the Md. Penitentiary, 190 Md. 729, 60 A.2d 523; nor any facts showing that the State's officers used testimony known to be perjured, or participated in any conspiracy to defraud petitioner of his rights.
Application denied, without costs.