Walker v. Warden of Md. House of Correction, 29
| Decision Date | 28 March 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 29,29 |
| Citation | 121 A.2d 714,209 Md. 654 |
| Parties | John C. WALKER v. WARDEN OF the MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Before BRUNE, C. J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and HAMMOND, JJ.
The petitioner, John C. Walker, asks leave to appeal from an order by Judge Charles C. Marbury, sitting in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, denying the petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus.
The petitioner was tried before a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore on a charge of burglary on October 14, 1955. He was convicted and was sentenced by Judge John T. Tucker to three years' imprisonment in the House of Correction. He asserts his innocence and claims that his conviction was in violation of his constitutional rights under both the Federal and the State Constitutions because, although the court told him at the time of his arraignment that certain named counsel would be appointed for him, no counsel was appointed to represent him. (The name of the lawyer alleged to have been mentioned is not stated.)
Judge Marbury, in passing upon the application, had before him a certified copy of the docket entries in the Criminal Court of Baltimore and a transcript of the proceedings at the time of the petitioner's arraignment and a copy of a medical report relating to the petitioner. These were public records which were properly taken into consideration by him under Code 1951, Article 42, § 5, in determining whether or not the writ should be granted. A letter from the Judge before whom the petitioner was tried does not, we think, constitute a public record and hence was not properly before the Judge to whom application was made for the writ and we have therefore disregarded it in reaching our conclusion.
The docket entries show that the indictment against Walker was returned on September 2, 1955, and that a copy of it was served on him on that day and that he gave a receipt for it. He was arraigned with a co-defendant, Jimmie Coughman, on September 9th. Coughman pleaded guilty, Walker, not guilty. Walker was asked by the court if he had over been in a mental institution and denied that he had been. The Judge then said that he would get a medical report. The accused accordingly was examined by the Chief Medical Officer for the court. His report, dated October 10, 1955, was filed, as a docket entry shows, on October 14, 1955, and was presumably in the hands of the Judge before the trial began on that day. The medical history therein contained does not show that the applicant had ever been in a mental institution, and the medical report stated that he was a responsible agent.
The question of guilt...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alexander v. Washington Gas Light Co.
...(holding that a notice, because it was docketed, should be considered a matter of public record); Walker, v. Warden of Maryland House of Corr., 209 Md. 654, 655, 121 A.2d 714 (1956). 6. A federal court should rely on the preclusion law of the state in which a judgment was issued to determin......
-
Topp v. Superintendent of Md. Reformatory for Males
...sufficient basis for the issuance of a writ; but it is not properly before us, since it was not presented by his petition. Walker v. Warden, 209 Md. 654, 121 A.2d 714; Roberts v. Warden, 211 Md. 639, 126 A.2d 857. See also Cooper v. Warden, Md., 136 A.2d 367, filed contemporaneously herewit......
-
Cooper v. Warden of Md. House of Correction, 14
...the office of the Clerk of the Baltimore City Court two days later. It seems that this question is not properly before us. Walker v. Warden, 209 Md. 654, 121 A.2d 714; Roberts v. Warden, 211 Md. 639, 126 A.2d Even if it were properly before us, Cooper's contention that his sentence for an a......
-
Hamilton v. Warden, Md. House of Correction, 113
...is not entitled to expand the grounds upon which he seeks the writ after his petition has been heard and considered. Walker v. Warden, 209 Md. 654, 657, 121 A.2d 714. However, as we did not specifically pass upon individual grounds (in many cases the grounds are not clearly stated) in dispo......