Baker v. Marbury
| Citation | 141 A.2d 523,216 Md. 572 |
| Decision Date | 16 May 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 268,268 |
| Parties | Richard R. BAKER v. Charles C. MARBURY. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Richard R. Baker, in pro. per.
James H. Norris, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. (C. Ferdinand Sybert, Atty. Gen., and Blair H. Smith, State's Atty. for Prince George's County Upper Marlboro, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus. It appears that Richard R. Baker, the petitioner-appellant, is confined as a prisoner at the Lorton Reformatory, Virginia, a Federal penal institution, under sentence imposed by a court of the District of Columbia, and that he was so confined at the time of filing this petition and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus referred to below.
He was indicted in October, 1956, by the grand jury for Prince George's County, Maryland, on a charge of breaking into a storehouse. Though it is not directly stated in the skimpy record before us, it seems a fair inference that he was imprisoned under the District of Columbia sentence before he could be brought to trial in Maryland. The length of that sentence does not appear.
In September, 1957, Baker filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with Judge Charles C. Marbury of the Seventh Judicial Circuit of Maryland, sitting in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. His object was either to cause himself to be brought before that court for a speedy trial or to cause the lifting of a detainer placed against him with the Lorton Reformatory. Such detainers are customarily placed by the Sheriff. Since the prisoner was not confined by or under the authority of the State of Maryland, his petition was dismissed.
He then filed the petition for a writ of mandamus in the present case. This petition was submitted to Judge John B. Gray, Jr., Chief Judge of the Seventh Judicial Circuit. The petitioner seeks an order directed to Judge Marbury requiring him 'to remove the warrant that is lodged against your petitioner.' We assume, as did Judge Gray, that the 'warrant' means the detainer placed with the Lorton Reformatory authorities.
Neither the placing nor the lifting of the detainer is a function of a Judge of the Seventh Judicial Circuit. It is also true, as Judge Marbury pointed out in the habeas corpus case, and as did Judge Gray in this case, that no judge of a Maryland court can require the Lorton Reformatory authorities to produce the petitioner for trial. It has been held that a court of a State cannot require the production for trial in such court of a prisoner held in custody under Federal authority, even where the penal institution is within the limits of the State. See 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 472, pp. 726, 727, and cases cited, and Annotation 118 A.L.R. 1046. We know of no authority to the contrary. A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aleman v. State
...CP § 3-112 is that Maryland must have custody and jurisdiction over the defendant in the first place. See, e.g., Baker v. Marbury, 216 Md. 572, 574, 141 A.2d 523 (1958) (denying habeas petition filed in Maryland by a defendant "in custody" of federal officials in Virginia because the "State......
-
Kirby v. State
...S.W.2d 11; Raine v. State, 143 Tenn. 168, 226 S.W. 189; United States v. Jackson, D.C.E.D.Ky., 134 F.Supp. 872. See also Baker v. Marbury, 216 Md. 572, 574, 141 A.2d 523; Kyle v. United States, 9 Cir., 211 F.2d 912; Nolly v. State, 35 Ala.App. 79, 43 So.2d If we assume again, as we did when......
-
Aleman v. State
...apply CP § 3-112 is that Maryland must have custody and jurisdiction over the defendant in the first place. See, e.g., Baker v. Marbury, 216 Md. 572, 574 (1958) (denying habeas petition filed in Maryland by a defendant "in custody" of federal officials in Virginia because the "State cannot ......
-
State v. Larkin
...States, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 183, 238 F.2d 259; Kirby v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary, 214 Md. 600, 133 A.2d 421; but see, Baker v. Marbury, 216 Md. 572, 141 A.2d 523, and see, State v. Kubus, 243 Minn. 379, 68 N.W.2d 217, certiorari denied, 349 U.S. 959, 75 S.Ct. 889, 99 L.Ed. 1282; Nolly v.......