From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Warden

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Oct 9, 1956
125 A.2d 672 (Md. 1956)

Opinion

[H.C. No. 32, October Term, 1956.]

Decided October 9, 1956.

HABEAS CORPUS — "Disparaging Remarks" of Trial Court in Charging Jury. A complaint that the trial court made "disparaging remarks" in charging the jury in a criminal proceeding cannot be raised on habeas corpus. p. 622

HABEAS CORPUS — Evidence — Sufficiency of. A complaint that there was insufficient evidence to convict cannot be raised on habeas corpus. p. 622

HABEAS CORPUS — Function of Writ — Appeal — Fundamental Jurisdiction. It is not the function of a court, on application for habeas corpus, to review alleged errors or irregularities which can be reviewed on appeal, and which do not go to the fundamental jurisdiction to try the accused. p. 622

HABEAS CORPUS — Jail Time, as Credit Against Sentence. The question of jail time, as a credit against sentence, cannot be reviewed on habeas corpus. The whole matter is within the discretion of the judge imposing sentence. p. 622

J.E.B.

Decided October 9, 1956.

Habeas corpus proceeding by James A. Williams against the Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary. From a refusal of the writ, petitioner applied for leave to appeal.

Application denied.

Before BRUNE, C.J., and COLLINS, HENDERSON and HAMMOND, JJ.


This is an application for leave to appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner was convicted on July 27, 1953, of larceny and housebreaking and sentenced to five years in the Penitentiary. He complains that the trial court made "disparaging remarks" in charging the jury, and there was insufficient evidence to convict him. As we have repeatedly said, it is not the function of a court, on application for habeas corpus, to review alleged errors or irregularities, which can be reviewed on appeal, and do not go to the fundamental jurisdiction to try the accused. Nor can the question of jail time, as a credit against sentence, be reviewed in such a proceeding. The whole matter is within the discretion of the judge imposing sentence. See Agner v. Warden, 203 Md. 665.

Application denied, with costs.


Summaries of

Williams v. Warden

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Oct 9, 1956
125 A.2d 672 (Md. 1956)
Case details for

Williams v. Warden

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAMS v . WARDEN OF MARYLAND PENITENTIARY

Court:Court of Appeals of Maryland

Date published: Oct 9, 1956

Citations

125 A.2d 672 (Md. 1956)
125 A.2d 672

Citing Cases

Woolford v. Warden

In any event it is not the function of a court, in a habeas corpus proceeding, to review alleged errors and…

Hicks v. Warden

Such questions cannot be raised on habeas corpus. Williams v. Warden, 211 Md. 621, 125 A.2d 672. Petitioner…