Hayden v. Warden, Md. Penitentiary
| Decision Date | 12 December 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 40,40 |
| Citation | 233 Md. 613,195 A.2d 692 |
| Parties | Bennie Joe HAYDEN v. WARDEN, MARYLAND PENITENTIARY. Post Conviction |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Before HENDERSON, HAMMOND, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.
In his amended petition for post conviction relief from his imprisonment for armed robbery, the petitioner asserted: (1) that his home was forcibly entered and searched; (2) that the prosecuting witness failed to positively identify him; (3) that the nolle prosequi by the State of a count in the indictment was proof of innocence; and (4) that he had been denied a speedy trial. At the post conviction hearing, the petitioner further asserted (5) that he was indicted on hearsay evidence and (6) that he was dissatisfied with the services of trial counsel for failure to object to hearsay evidence produced at the trial. In a letter addressed to Chief Judge Brune after the transcript of record had been filed in this Court, the applicant for leave to appeal stated that his 'basic contention was, and still is, that the evidence used should have been inadmissible because the police acted on hearsay evidence to search my home without a warrant and neither was there a warrant for my arrest.'
For the reasons stated by Judge Sodaro in the lower court, we agree that the applicant was not entitled to post conviction relief for any of the reasons stated in the second through the sixth contentions, but this may not be true with respect to the first contention, concerning the search of his home and arrest without a warrant which the applicant subsequently stated was his basic contention.
Instead of ascertaining whether in fact there had been an illegal search and seizure, and a consequent arrest without a warrant, the hearing judge summarily disposed of the matter by stating that the question should have been raised at the trial and was not a gound for post conviction relief. In so doing, he may have gone too far. See Edwards v. Warden, Md., 195 A.2d 40 and Davis v. Warden, Md., 195 A.2d 37. We think the question should first have been considered as one of fact rather than a question of law.
Leave to appeal granted and case remanded for further proceedings.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayden v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
...it remanded the case to the lower court for a determination of the legality of the search and seizure. Hayden v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, 233 Md. 613, 195 A.2d 692 (1963). Since the Court of Appeals of Maryland did not interpose the failure to object as a bar to consideration of the m......
-
Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden, 480
...Post Conviction Procedure Act which was denied without hearing. The Maryland Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a hearing. 233 Md. 613, 195 A.2d 692. The trial court denied relief after hearing, concluding 'that the search of his home and the seizure of the articles in question were......
- Bucholtz v. Warden of Md. Penitentiary, 69
-
Boston v. Warden of Md. Penitentiary
...have been, and that (b) should now be, considered as questions of fact before either is considered as a question of law. See Hayden v. Warden, Md., 195 A.2d 692. Leave to appeal granted and case remanded for further proceedings on points (a) and (b) ...