Opinion
[H.C. No. 56, October Term, 1956.]
Decided February 7, 1957.
HABEAS CORPUS — Guilty Plea — Evidence Showed That Petitioner Entered. There was no merit to a contention by petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus that he pleaded not guilty at his trial on criminal charges, and, by a mistake of the clerk of the court, a plea of guilty was entered. The Assistant State's Attorneys who tried the case for the State testified that their records and the notations they made on the indictments showed that petitioner pleaded guilty, and that they both remembered that he did so. Certified copies of the docket entries also showed that he pleaded guilty. p. 640
CRIMINAL LAW — Counsel in State Cases — Lack of Violates Federal Constitution Only When Accused Denied Essentials of Justice — Burden on Accused. The Federal Constitution does not compel a State to furnish counsel as a matter of right, as the Sixth Amendment requires in Federal prosecutions. Lack of counsel at State trials denies Federal Constitutional protection only when an absence of counsel results in a denial of the essentials of justice to the accused. The burden of showing that want of counsel operated actively as an ingredient of unfairness in the trial is on the traverser. Petitioner in this habeas corpus proceeding, who was experienced in court cases, alleged no facts which would show any such ingredient of unfairness. p. 640
HABEAS CORPUS — Cross-Examining State Witnesses. An allegation that petitioner was denied the right to cross-examine State witnesses goes only to the regularity of the proceedings, not to the jurisdiction of the trial court, and cannot be raised on habeas corpus. pp. 640-641
HABEAS CORPUS — Testimony in Own Defense. A contention that petitioner was not allowed to testify in his own defense can be raised on appeal, but not on habeas corpus. p. 641
J.E.B.
Decided February 7, 1957.
Habeas corpus proceeding by Thomas W. Young 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 by Thomas W. Young for leave to appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus by Chief Judge Emory H. Niles, of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City, after a hearing held before him on October 23, 1956.
Petitioner was tried on charges of burglary and carrying a deadly weapon and sentenced by Judge Joseph Byrnes to four years in the Maryland House of Correction from March 20, 1955.
Petitioner contends that he pleaded not guilty and, by a mistake of the clerk of the court, a plea of guilty was entered at the trial before Judge Byrnes. At the hearing on the petition held by Judge Niles, Messrs. Pairo and Murphy, Assistant State's Attorneys, who tried the case for the State, testified that the records in the State's Attorney's Office and the notations which they made on the face of the indictment showed that petitioner pleaded guilty to both charges and, also, that they both remembered that he pleaded guilty. Also, certified copies of the docket entry show that petitioner pleaded guilty to both charges. Johnson v. Warden, 209 Md. 643, 120 A.2d 914; Pritchard v. Warden, 209 Md. 662, 121 A.2d 696.
Petitioner further contends that he requested counsel for his defense and this request was denied by the trial judge. At the hearing before Judge Niles petitioner testified that in 1946 he was sentenced to jail for thirty days. In 1948 he served 150 days in jail for traffic violations. In 1949 he had a year's probation for unauthorized use of an automobile. In 1951 he served eighteen months in the Maryland House of Correction for attempted burglary. Petitioner alleges no facts which would show that any ingredient of unfairness actively operated in the trial which resulted in his confinement. He was experienced in court cases. It is well settled that the Federal Constitution does not compel a state to furnish counsel as a matter of right as is required by the 6th Amendment in federal prosecutions. Lack of counsel at state trials denies federal constitutional protection only when the absence of counsel results in a denial of the essentials of justice to the accused. The burden of showing that want of counsel operated actively as an ingredient of unfairness is on the traverser. There is no such evidence here. Truelove v. Warden, 207 Md. 636, 115 A.2d 297.
Petitioner also alleges that he was denied the right to cross-examine state witnesses. This goes only to the regularity of the proceedings and not to the jurisdiction of the trial court and cannot be raised on habeas corpus. Pritchard v. Warden, supra.
Petitioner further contends that he was not allowed to testify in his own defense. This can be raised on appeal but not on habeas corpus. Bowen v. Warden, 200 Md. 661, 90 A.2d 174.
Application denied, with costs.