Opinion
[H.C. No. 73, October Term, 1956.]
Decided April 12, 1957.
HABEAS CORPUS — Trial Before Magistrate — Claim That Evidence Warranted Greater Charge — Sentence Not in Excess of Three Years for Each Offense of Which Petitioner Might Be Convicted. Petitioner, in this habeas corpus proceeding, who had been convicted by a magistrate of two separate assaults and received consecutive sentences of three and two years each, claimed that the evidence against him might have warranted a charge of assault with intent to kill, instead of a charge of simple assault. The claim had no merit, because the magistrate could try him only for the offenses with which he was charged, and could not in any event impose a sentence in excess of three years for each offense of which petitioner might be convicted. Nor was there merit to a claim that under the opinion of the trial judge on a previous appeal he could not have been sentenced by the magistrate to a total of more than three years' imprisonment. The opinion formed no part of the order remanding petitioner to custody, and only the order of remand was affirmed by this Court, the opinion of which on the aggregate sentence which might be imposed was the opposite of that of the trial judge. pp. 627-628
J.E.B.
Decided April 12, 1957.
Habeas corpus proceeding by William Ray Yantz 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.
Before BRUNE, C.J., and COLLINS, HENDERSON, HAMMOND and PRESCOTT, JJ.
This is an application for leave to appeal from a denial of a writ of habeas corpus by Judge John T. Tucker of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City. The petitioner, William Ray Yantz, was convicted on July 31, 1954, of two separate assaults for which he received consecutive sentences of three and two years each in the House of Correction. All but one of the complaints now raised were considered by this Court in a former appeal. Yantz v. Warden, 210 Md. 343, 123 A.2d 601. That one is that the evidence against him might have warranted a charge of assault with intent to kill, instead of a charge of simple assault. This unusual claim has no merit either in itself or as indicating the seriousness of the petitioner's offenses and the asserted need for counsel. The magistrate could try him only for the offenses with which he was charged and could not in any event impose a sentence in excess of three years' imprisonment for each of the offenses of which the petitioner might be convicted. It may also be noted that no such contention was raised on his previous appeal.
The petitioner also complains that under the opinion of Judge Manley on his previous appeal he could not have been sentenced by the magistrate to a total of more than three years' imprisonment. That opinion formed no part of the order remanding the applicant to custody. Only the order of remand was affirmed by this Court. The opinion of this Court on the aggregate sentence which might be imposed was the opposite of Judge Manley's opinion on that question.
Application denied, with costs.