Bunn v. Warden, Md. House of Correction, 67
| Decision Date | 28 April 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 67,67 |
| Parties | Charles Edward BUNN v. WARDEN, MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION. Npost Conviction |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Before PRESCOTT, C. J., and HAMMOND, HORNEY, MARBURY and BARNES, JJ.
Charles Edward Bunn was convicted of larceny of an automobile by Judge Harris in the Criminal Court of Baltimore and sentenced to five years in the Maryland House of Correction. No appeal was taken. On February 17, 1965, Bunn filed a petition under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act, and relief was denied by Judge Cullen.
The facts of the case are as follows: A police officer from the Millville, New Jersey, Police Department was at the location where the stolen car was stuck in the mud on the side of the road when the petitioner, a friend, and the friend's seventeen-year-old son drove up in a truck with the expectation of pulling the car from the mud. The arrest of petitioner was made on the basis of a flyer issued by the Federal Bureau of Invetigation which was known to the arresting officer. During the conversation which followed at the police station, the police officer 'may have said that we could probably hold the boy for helping him (petitioner) get the car out of the woods.' Petitioner replied that he did not want to involve the boy and then he stated that he had taken the car in Baltimore.
Petitioner's first contention is that his confession was induced by threats. The question was considered by Judge Cullen at the hearing, and after a careful review of the transcript of the trial, he concluded that petitioner's oral statement was not induced by threats and was admissible as a voluntary confession.
Petitioner next contends that he did not have the assistance of counsel at the time he made the confession and he was not warned of his right to counsel. The circumstances of this case are outside the facts of Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977. At the hearing, petitioner admitted that he did not request counsel while being questioned by the police. Since the statement was given voluntarily, it was admissible. Hyde v. State, 240 Md. 661, 664, 215 A.2d 145, and cases cited therein.
When the trial judge sought information about the grounds on which the arrest had been made without a warrant, the contents of the F. B. I flyer were put into evidence without objection and revealed that petitioner was wanted on the charges of breaking and entering,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Curtis v. State
... ... Accord, Washington v. Warden, 243 Md. 316, 321, 220 A.2d 607 (1966); Bristow v. State, ... 287, 291, 47 A.2d 50, Cert. denied, 329 U.S. 754, 67 S.Ct. 95, 91 L.Ed. 650 (1946). We have previously observed ... 18, 226 A.2d 356 (1967); Dodson v. Warden, Md. House of Correction, 8 Md.App. 593, 261 A.2d 195 (1970); Vanfield ... ...
-
Foster v. State
...confession or incriminating statement. See, e.g., Vines v. State, 285 Md. 369, 381, 402 A.2d 900, 906 (1979); Bunn v. Warden, 242 Md. 399, 400, 219 A.2d 37, 38 (1966); Schowgurow v. State, 240 Md. 121, 136, 213 A.2d 475, 485 (1965); Nicholson v. State, 38 Md. 140, 141, 154 (1873). An accuse......
-
Zimmerman v. State
... ... The officer recalled that uneven house numbers were on the south side of the street. Asked where ... ...
-
Montgomery v. Warden, Md. House of Correction
...at his trial, the circumstances are outside of Excobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977. Bunn v. Warden, 242 Md. 399, 219 A.2d 37. Nor is lack of counsel at arrest a ground for relief. Walls v. Warden, 242 Md. 401, 219 A.2d 6. The contention in the petition......