Blount v. Wright

• Decision Date: 14 November 1947
• Docket Number: 26.
• Citation: 55 A.2d 709,189 Md. 294
• Parties: BLOUNT v. WRIGHT, Warden.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

55 A.2d 709

189 Md. 294

BLOUNT v. WRIGHT, Warden.

No. 26.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

November 14, 1947

Appeal from Baltimore City Court; W. Conwell Smith, Judge.

Habeas corpus proceeding by Charlie H. Blount against J. Le Roy Wright, Warden of the Maryland House of Correction. From order denying issuance of writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner appeals.

Order affirmed.

Hall Hammond, Atty. Gen., and J. Edgar Harvey, Asst. Atty. Gen for appellee.

Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON, and MARKELL, JJ.

DELAPLAINE Judge.

This petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed by Charlie H Blount, who alleges that he was tried in the Criminal Court of Baltimore on the charge of 'assault robbery with deadly weapon,' and was found guilty and sentenced to the Maryland House of Correction.

Petitioner claims that at his trial on June 26, 1946, the State did not produce sufficient evidence to support the charges against him and his constitutional rights were violated. The application was denied without a hearing by Chief Judge W. Conwell Smith, of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City. Petitioner thereupon appealed to this Court from the order denying issuance of the writ.

Petitioner claims that he was framed by two co-defendants, who had retained two attorneys to represent them, and that his constitutional rights were violated by the attorneys. He says that they refused to let him and his witnesses go on the witness stand to testify in his own behalf. It is firmly established that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a writ of error. The Court has no more right on habeas corpus than on direct appeal to inquire into the legal sufficiency of the evidence on which the petitioner was convicted. Bernard v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction, Md., 49 A.2d 737. The function of habeas corpus is exhausted when it is ascertained that the court under whose order the petitioner is being held had jurisdiction to act. An imprisonment under sentence by a court of competent jurisdiction is not unlawful unless the sentence is not merely erroneous but an absolute nullity. But a trial court may lose its jurisdiction in the course of the proceedings through the violation of certain constitutional rights in criminal procedure, and its judgment may consequently be void. Olewiler v. Brady, 185 Md 341, 44 A.2d 807.

In this case there is no allegation that the petitioner was unable to employ counsel, or that he was incapable of making his defense, or that he requested the Court to appoint counsel. The only allegation is that the attorneys for the co-defendants refused to let him and his witnesses testify. There is no merit in his contention that his constitutional rights were violated. If he desired to testify in his own defense, and if he had witnesses present in court to testify in his behalf, the Court would have allowed them...