Brigmon v. Warden of Md. Penitentiary
| Decision Date | 15 April 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 71,71 |
| Citation | 213 Md. 628,131 A.2d 245 |
| Parties | Isaiah BRIGMON v. WARDEN OF THE MARYLAND PENITENTIARY. Application |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Before BRUNE, C. J., and COLLINS, HENDERSON, HAMMOND, and PRESCOTT, JJ.
Isaiah Brigmon makes application to this Court for leave to appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus by Judge Smith of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County on November 19, 1956. The petitioner was tried in Prince George's County before Judge Gray and a jury on a charge of carnal knowledge. He was convicted and sentenced to twenty years in the Maryland Penitentiary, dating from May 24, 1954.
The petitioner contends: (1) That perjury was committed at his trial; (2) that counsel was appointed, but that counsel did nothing for him; (3) that the indictment did not state the place or town where the offense occurred; (4) that the witnesses remained in the court room during the trial; (5) that the 'jury was hung and the court would not dismiss the jury and order a mistrial, but ordered this jury to reach a verdict,' and (6) that he is falsely and illegally imprisoned.
(1) That perjury was committed at the trial. This Court has previously held that, in the absence of facts that establish the knowing participation of the State's officers in the use of perjured testimony, the mere allegation that perjury was committed at the trial does not justify the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus. Whitley v. Warden, 209 Md. 629, 120 A.2d 200. The petitioner alleges the State's officers told the prosecuting witness the names of several places in Prince George's County and 'put words in her mouth'. This is not a sufficient allegation of facts to state the knowing participation of the State's officers in the use of perjured testimony so as to justify the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
(2) Ineptness of counsel. The alleged ineptness, lack of diligence or incompetency of counsel is not ground for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, in the absence of any allegations of fraud, bad faith or collusion by defense counsel with any State official. Lawrenson v. Warden, Md., 130 A.2d 586.
(3) Failure of the indictment to state the place or town where the offense occurred. Petitioner makes no contention that the indictment did not charge the commission of the offense within the county where the indictment was returned, but complains that it did not name...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Topp v. Superintendent of Md. Reformatory for Males
...the State's knowing participation in the use of perjured testimony, is not a ground for the issuance of the writ sought. Brigmon v. Warden, 213 Md. 628, 131 A.2d 245. Application denied, with ...
-
Cooper v. Warden of Md. House of Correction, 14
...recent holdings on this point, Shields v. Warden, 212 Md. 655, 129 A.2d 72; Hicks v. Warden, 213 Md. 625, 130 A.2d 761; Brigmon v. Warden, 213 Md. 628, 131 A.2d 245. 2. Alleged Lack of Formal Notice of Denial of Motion for New Cooper alleges that immediately upon being found guilty, he 'fil......
-
McCutheon v. Warden of Md. Penitentiary
...court for it. The filing of a motion for a new trial or an appeal is a matter of right and not one of judicial granting. Brigmon v. Warden, 213 Md. 628, 131 A.2d 245. There is no allegation that the defendant lacked counsel or was unaware of his legal rights or that he filed a motion for a ......
-
Campbell v. State
...in the absence of abuse, the length of time the jury should deliberate is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Brigmon v. Warden, 213 Md. 628, 131 A.2d 245. The circumstances of the communication was not coercive as in Shields v. United States, 273 U.S. 583, 47 S.Ct. 478, 71 L.Ed......