Clark v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary

• Decision Date: 26 July 1961
• Docket Number: No. 8277.,8277.
• Parties: Joseph Henry CLARK, Appellant, v. WARDEN MARYLAND PENITENTIARY, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

293 F.2d 479 (1961)

Joseph Henry CLARK, Appellant, v. WARDEN MARYLAND PENITENTIARY, Appellee.

No. 8277.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued April 7, 1961.

Decided July 26, 1961.

James C. McKay (Court-assigned counsel), Washington, D. C. Stephen J. Pollak, Court-assigned counsel, Washington, D. C., on the brief, for appellant.

James H. Norris, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. of Maryland (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, on the brief), for appellee.

Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, BOREMAN, Circuit Judge, and HARRY E. WATKINS, District Judge.

SOBELOFF, Chief Judge.

This is the appeal of Joseph Henry Clark, a Maryland state prisoner whose application for a writ of habeas corpus was denied by the District Court without a hearing. The sole question presented for determination is whether Clark should have been given a hearing on the claim that his conviction was based on testimony known by state officials to be false.

The relevant facts may be summarized as follows: On May 9, 1958, in the Criminal Court of Baltimore City, Clark was convicted of common assault in two separate cases and was sentenced in one to 10 years imprisonment and to 15 years in the other, the sentences to run consecutively. At trial Clark was represented by court-appointed counsel.

No appeal was taken from the judgments of conviction, but in February, 1959, Clark filed in the Criminal Court of Baltimore City a petition for relief under the Maryland Post Conviction Procedure Act. Md.Code 1957, Art. 27, § 645A et seq. In that petition Clark alleged that after his arrest he was brought to the police station and placed in a lineup. The complaining witnesses, Mrs. Ellen G. McDaniels and Miss Mary Smith, viewed the line-up but were unable to identify him as their assailant until police officers told them "that the man that they was looking for was No. 6 in the lineup." Clark was number 6 in the lineup. The petition further asserted that the same complaining witnesses, who were able to identify him at the line-up only after coaching by the police, perjured themselves when at his trial they testified that he was their assailant.

Thus, Clark's inexpertly drawn petition which demonstrates his very limited powers of expression states:

"Petitioner here will present new evidence that this witness Mrs. Ellen G. McDaniels, one of the complaining witnesses Used Perjury in Her Testimony at Said trial, and He Will Prove His Innocent Beyond A Reasonable doubt. Another Witness, Mary Smith the second complaining witness falsely testified and Falsely identified Petitioner With the Help of Said Police officers Who coached these Witnesses to Pick out No. 6 in the Lineup, the other Persons in the Line Up was paid by Said Police to stand in."

* * * * * *

"Petitioner avers that He was Convict falsely by the Court of a Frame Up charges by Police Officers and False Testimony by the Two State Witnesses Aforesaid."

Finally, in Clark's own words it is alleged: "That petitioner's plea of Not Guilty and Sentence pursuant thereto were directly, solely and willfully induced, procured and coerced by the aforesaid shockingly vicious and dishonest actions of various members of the Police Department of Baltimore City * * *."

The state court considered on the merits Clark's claim of a denial of a federal constitutional right, but dismissed the petition because in its view it failed to allege that the state knew that the testimony of the complaining witnesses was false.¹

Following this dismissal Clark applied to the Maryland Court of Appeals for leave to appeal. This was denied "for the reasons set forth by the court below." Clark v. Warden Maryland Penitentiary, 1960, 222 Md. 634, 160 A.2d 789. Likewise, his petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States was denied, 1960, 364 U.S. 848, 81 S.Ct. 92, 5 L.Ed.2d 72. Having exhausted state remedies, Clark then applied to the United States District Court for the writ of habeas corpus. His application repeats the allegations earlier presented to the Maryland courts. The District Judge dismissed the application without a hearing, stating:

"* * * I conclude that all the matters of which complaint is made by the petitioner have been fully and fairly considered by the Maryland courts, and as I am in accord with the views therein expressed * * *, I conclude that the present petition should be and is hereby dismissed * * *."

Because Clark has been given no hearing in either the state or federal court on the factual issues raised by his petition, we must, of course, accept his allegations as true for the purposes of this appeal. Holly v. Smyth, 4 Cir., 1960, 280 F.2d 536, 537. The rule permitting a federal court, in its discretion, to deny a hearing where the state court record and findings disclose that there has been a fair and satisfactory consideration of the facts. Brown v. Allen, 1953, 344 U.S. 443, 463, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469, has no application where the allegations are sufficient to state a denial of due process and there was no hearing or findings in the state court to resolve the factual issues. See: United States ex rel. Sileo v. Martin, 2 Cir., 1959, 269 F.2d 586; Holly v. Smyth, supra, 280 F.2d at pages 542-543; Grundler v. State of North Carolina, 4 Cir., 1960, 283 F.2d 798, 802.

Moreover, the fact that the state court held Clark's petition insufficient to allege...