Arrington v. Warden of Md. Penitentiary
| Decision Date | 18 November 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 53,53 |
| Citation | 195 A.2d 38,232 Md. 672 |
| Parties | Theodore R. ARRINGTON v. WARDEN OF the MARYLAND PENITENTIARY. Post Conviction |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY, MARBURY, and SYBERT, JJ.
In this application for leave to appeal from a denial of post conviction relief, the petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. The judgment was affirmed on appeal. Arrington v. State, 228 Md. 143, 179 A.2d 344. A petition for post conviction relief was filed and denied by Judge Harris, but no application for leave to appeal was filed. A second petition was later denied by Judge Oppenheimer, from which the present application was filed. All except the last ground were fully treated by Judge Harris, but the allegation that the petitioner had no counsel at the preliminary hearing was novel, and was dealt with by Judge Oppenheimer.
It appears that a preliminary hearing was held on January 17, 1961, before Magistrate Rosen, who informed the petitioner that the purpose of the hearing was not to determine his innocence or guilt but simply The petitioner responded: 'not guilty.' When he was arraigned on March 20, 1961, he pleaded 'not guilty.' At that time he was represented by counsel, but not at the preliminary hearing.
The petitioner relies upon the case of White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59, 83 S.Ct. 1050, 10 L.Ed.2d 193, reversing White v. State, 227 Md. 615, 177 A.2d 877, but we think the case is readily distinguishable. In the White case the accused had pleaded guilty at the preliminary hearing, and the guilty plea was put in evidence at the trial without objection. The Supreme Court, in its per curiam opinion, held Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, 82 S.Ct. 157, 7 L.Ed.2d 114, controlling, and said:
Despite the breadth of this language, we think the mere absence of counsel at the preliminary hearing would not have required reversal, except for the fact that the guilty plea had an effect upon the subsequent course of the trial. Under Maryland law a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crawford v. State
...whether the accused should be held for action of the Grand Jury or charged by the State's Attorney on information. Arrington v. Warden, 232 Md. 672, 195 A.2d 38 (1963); Kochel v. State, 10 Md.App. 11, 267 A.2d 755 (1970). While there is no constitutional right to a preliminary hearing, the ......
-
Utt v. State
...379 U.S. 869, 85 S.Ct. 135, 13 L.Ed.2d 72 (1964); Lauder v. State, 233 Md. 142, 145, 195 A.2d 610 (1963); and Arrington v. Warden, 232 Md. 672, 674-75, 195 A.2d 38 (1963). These three Maryland decisions distinguished White, finding that the preliminary hearing was not a critical stage under......
-
Fabian v. State
...as to require the presence of counsel.' Lauder v. State, 233 Md. 142, 145, 195 A.2d 610, 611 (1963). See also Arrington v. Warden, 232 Md. 672, 195 A.2d 38 (1963), distinguishing Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, 82 S. Ct. 157, 7 L.Ed.2d 114 and White v. Maryland, supra; and see Application......
-
Green v. State
...whether the accused should be held for action of the Grand Jury or charged by the State's Attorney on information. Arrington v. Warden, 232 Md. 672, 195 A.2d 38 (1963); Kochel v. State, 10 Md.App. 11, 267 A.2d 755 (1970). While there is no constitutional right to a preliminary hearing, if t......