Dorris v. Warden of Md. Penitentiary
| Decision Date | 19 February 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 82,82 |
| Citation | 222 Md. 586,158 A.2d 105 |
| Parties | Robert DORRIS v. WARDEN OF THE MARYLAND PENITENTIARY. Post Conviction |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, and HORNEY, JJ.
This is an application for leave to appeal from the denial of post conviction relief.
The petitioner concludes his twenty-one page 'petition' for post conviction relief--which is in effect not a petition at all, but a diatribe of what he says are the 'tyrannical and dictatorial criminal procedures' under which he was tried-- by contending in effect (i) that he is innocent, which is a question that may not be raised in a collateral proceeding [Galloway v. Warden, Md.1960, 157 A.2d 284]; (ii) that his constitutional rights were violated (a) because the evidence was insufficient to convict him of robbery in that the victim--who admitted that he was too drunk to remember what had happened--was unable to identify the petitioner until after a police sergeant had told the victim the position of the petitioner in a 'line-up' and (b) because there was no credible corroboration of an accomplice who also testified against him, which are questions as to the sufficiency of the evidence that should have been raised on direct appeal [Cf. Galloway v. Warden, supra]; and (iii) that he was denied his right to a new trial and a direct appeal because the trial court failed to advise him of such rights, which is wholly without merit since a court is under no obligation to inform a defendant of either of such rights. Cf. McClung v. Warden, Md.1959, 155 A.2d 893.
Application denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hyde v. Warden of Md. Penitentiary
...line-up is barred as a matter which the applicant could have raised at his trial or on appeal, but which he did not press. Dorris v. Warden, 222 Md. 586, 158 A.2d 105. In any event the allegations appear too insubstantial to warrant relief--'that it took two observations by alleged witnesse......
-
Gardner v. State
...S.W.2d 331 (Ky.Ct.App.1963); Rayne v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, 223 Md. 688, 165 A.2d 474 (1960); Dorris v. Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary, 222 Md. 586, 158 A.2d 105 (1960); Peyton v. Webb, Appellants were afforded full opportunity to develop the evidenitary matters at the hearing......
-
Montgomery v. Warden, Md. House of Correction
...and is no basis for relief under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act. Duckett v. Warden, 230 Md. 621, 185 A.2d 712; Dorris v. Warden, 222 Md. 586, 158 A.2d 105. There remain the second and third contentions which shall be considered The petition is not clear as to exactly when or unde......
-
Young v. Warden of Md. Penitentiary, 56
...concerns the sufficiency of the evidence and cannot be considered under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act. Dorris v. Warden, 222 Md. 586, 158 A.2d 105. In expounding on his fourth allegation, the applicant makes the point that, notwithstanding the decisions by this Court which hold ......