Opinion
[App. No. 140, September Term, 1965.]
Decided July 1, 1966.
POST CONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT — Claim That Applicant Was Prejudiced Because Police Officer Allegedly Refused To Investigate His Alibi Story — Claim Not Raised Below, And Therefore Need Not Be Considered Upon Application For Leave To Appeal — In Any Event, Contention Found Without Merit After Review Of Trial Transcript. pp. 686-687
Decided July 1, 1966.
Application for leave to appeal from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County (PARKER, J.).
Raymond Calvin VanField instituted a proceeding under the Post Conviction Procedure Act, and from a denial of relief, he applied for leave to appeal.
Application denied.
Before HAMMOND, HORNEY, OPPENHEIMER, BARNES and McWILLIAMS, JJ.
Application for leave to appeal is denied for the reasons stated by Judge Roscoe H. Parker in his opinion in the lower court.
In his application for leave to appeal to this Court, the applicant stated that he was prejudiced because Detective Sergeant Lawrence R. Wheeler refused to investigate his alibi story. This claim was not raised below and, therefore, need not be considered by us on appeal. See Maryland Rule 885; Hammond v. State, 241 Md. 733, 217 A.2d 569 (1966) and Sturgis v. Warden, 241 Md. 728, 217 A.2d 341 (1966).
In any event we have reviewed the transcript of the applicant's trial, and the contention is without merit. The applicant claimed that Sergeant Wheeler refused to investigate whether the applicant was at a place called "Steve's" (hotel and bar), how long he was there, and what transpired while he was there. Although Sergeant Wheeler did not go to "Steve's" (it was his experience that the management was most uncooperative to the police), he did investigate the applicant's story and interviewed two persons who said they saw the applicant at "Steve's" on the night he, along with three other men, allegedly raped a woman on a side road near Laurel, Maryland. The testimony of one witness, originally interviewed by Sergeant Wheeler, who saw the applicant at "Steve's" was used by the defense in an attempt to rebut certain particulars of the prosecutrix's testimony as to when and where she was first accosted by the applicant and his companions.
Application denied.