Opinion
[P.C. No. 10, September Term, 1959.]
Decided October 20, 1959.
POST CONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT — Hearing under — Presence of Petitioner Not Necessary. The presence of the petitioner is not necessary at the hearing on his petition under the Post Conviction Procedure Act, and the hearing is not invalid because he is not present. Code (1959 Supp.), Art. 27, § 645G. p. 668
POST CONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT — Contention Not Presented Below Not Considered on Application for Leave to Appeal. A contention made under the Post Conviction Procedure Act, which was not presented in the trial court, is not properly before the Court of Appeals on an application for leave to appeal from an order denying relief, and will not be considered by the Court. p. 668
J.E.B.
Decided October 20, 1959.
Filbert A. Shifflett instituted a proceeding under the Post Conviction Procedure Act, and from a denial of relief, he applied for leave to appeal.
Application denied.
Before BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
For the reasons stated by Judge Oppenheimer in his opinion in the Criminal Court of Baltimore for denying Shifflett's application under the Post Conviction Procedure Act, his application for leave to appeal from the order denying relief is denied as to the contentions there presented. His contention that his hearing on his application was invalid because he was not present is untenable. His presence was not necessary. Code (1959 Supp.), Art. 27, § 645G; Plump v. Warden, 220 Md. 662, 153 A.2d 269, 270. Other contentions not presented in the trial court are not properly before this Court and will not be considered by this Court. Young v. Warden, 218 Md. 636, 145 A.2d 238.
Application denied.