Banks v. Warden of Md. Penitentiary, 16
| Decision Date | 09 June 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 16,16 |
| Citation | 151 A.2d 897,220 Md. 652 |
| Parties | Monroe J. BANKS v. WARDEN OF THE MARYLAND PENITENTIARY. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
When the Criminal Court of Baltimore (Cullen, J.) denied his petition for post conviction relief, Monroe J. Banks (the applicant) applied to this Court for leave to appeal.
The applicant, who was represented by counsel at the trial--[as he was at a second post conviction hearing afforded him when the decision in Byrd v. Warden, Md. 1959, 147 A.2d 701, came to the attention of Judge Cullen]--pleaded guilty to an indictment in which he was charged with having violated the narcotic laws of this State a second time, and was sentenced by the trial court (Tucker, J.) to seven years in the Penitentiary from February 16, 1955.
The docket entries show that the applicant submitted to a court trial under a plea of guilty on March 3, 1955, after having withdrawn a plea of not guilty he had previously made when he was arraigned on February 28, 1955. But he filed no motion raising other defenses or objections based on defects in the institution of the prosecution or in the indictment which should have been raised by motion before trial. Nor did he ever object to the lack of jurisdiction in the trial court or the failure of the indictment to charge an offense which the court could have considered during the pendency of the original trial. See Rule 725 b 2.
However, in this post conviction proceeding, the applicant asserts three reasons why the judgment and sentence should be set aside or corrected. He now claims for the first time that the heroin he had in his possession or under his control on February 16, 1955, was obtained by the police by means of an illegal search and seizure, that the indictment was void because the statute on which it was based was unconstitutional, and that the sentence was excessive.
The statute which makes post conviction proceedings possible specifically provides that the remedy therein provided is not a substitute for the remedies which were available to the applicant before or during the original trial, such as those afforded by the provisions of Rule 725 b, supra, or the remedy obtainable by a review of the conviction and sentence in this Court on appeal. See Code (1958 Supp.) Art. 27, § 645A(b). See also Barbee v. Warden, Md.1959, 151 A.2d 167; Carter v. Warden, Md.1959, 150 A.2d 242.
The contention that the heroin was obtained by an alleged illegal search and seizure should have been raised before trial, but it was without merit in any event since Code (1951) Art. 27, § 368, provided that the provisions of the Bouse Act [Code (1951) Art. 35, § 5] were not applicable to prosecutions relating to narcotic drugs. Cf. Smith v. Warden, 1957, 214 Md. 666, 136 A.2d 381.
The contention that § 368, supra, is unconstitutional because it permits an 'illegal'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. State
...a belated appeal." At 718, 222 A.2d at 836. Accord, Fisher v. Warden, 225 Md. 642, 643, 171 A.2d 731 (1961); Banks v. Warden, 220 Md. 652, 654, 151 A.2d 897 (1959); Carter v. Warden, 219 Md. 692, 693, 150 A.2d 242 (1959). It was early established that the Act was procedural only and did not......
-
People v. Eastman
...which had adopted the exclusionary rule pre-Mapp, coram nobis or its equivalent was denied under such circumstances. (Banks v. Warden, 220 Md. 652, 151 A.2d 897; People v. Cole, 152 Cal.App.2d 71, 312 P.2d 701.) We may note in this connection a reference in the majority opinion of Mapp v. O......
-
Midgett v. Warden, Maryland State Penitentiary
...which was not attacked on either appeal, and it is not subject to review in this proceeding. Art. 27, section 645A(a); Banks v. Warden, 220 Md. 652 151 A.2d 897; Rice v. Warden, 221 Md. In his present petition Midgett adds a new allegation — that he waived extradition on "the assurance of s......
-
Torres v. Warden of Md. Penitentiary, 14
...in the trial court * * * or any remedy of direct review * * *.' See the following cases arising under the Act: Banks v. Warden, 220 Md. 652, 654, 151 A.2d 897 (waiver of question of constitutionality of Narcotics Law by failure to raise it in trial court and pleading guilty; no appeal); Bro......