Hamilton v. Warden of Md. House of Correction, 19
| Decision Date | 20 November 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 19,19 |
| Parties | Walter Allen HAMILTON v. WARDEN OF THE MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION. Application |
| 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 a writ of habeas corpus by Judge Raine, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. Petitioner pleaded guilty to six charges charges of larceny of six different automobiles, and on February 6, 1956, was sentenced by Judge Carter, in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, to eight years in each case, to run concurrently. Petitioner was twenty-one years of age and had had a previous conviction in the Criminal Court. At the time of his arraignment he did not ask for counsel and entered the pleas in person. But the court appointed counsel and postponed the case until later in the day. Petitioner admits that he told his court-appointed counsel he did not desire to change his pleas. He complains that his counsel was not prepared to properly represent him, and he did not realize that since three of the counts charged larceny of automobiles in Baltimore County the court lacked jurisdiction on these counts. This phase of the case was discussed and disposed of on a previous application for leave to appeal from the denial of a writ, in Hamilton v. Warden, 212 Md. 659, 129 A.2d 169, where it was pointed out that he would not be entitled to release in any event, since the sentences were concurrent.
Petitioner now alleges for the first time that his pleas of guilty were induced by a promise that was not carried out by the arresting officers. He alleges that Lieutenant Martindale of the Baltimore Police Department told him that if he would cooperate in the recovery of the stolen cars from Virginia and North Carolina, and would plead guilty, Lieutenant Martindale would request the court to suspend sentence in order that the petitioner might be turned over to the Federal authorities for prosecution under the Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2311 et seq. Petitioner alleges that despite his 'cooperation', and pleas of guilty, no such recommendation was made to the court, and he had since been informed by the F. B. I. that he would not have received a sentence of more than three years in the Federal court.
Whether such a contention may be raised on habeas corpus is not free from doubt. We have held that an appeal will lie, even after a plea of guilty, where the plea was not voluntarily and freely made, as, for example, under a promise of immunity. Lowe v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. State
...proceedings, as an alternative to appeal, but we recognized that there were exceptions to that general rule. Hamilton v. Warden, 214 Md. 633, 636, 136 A.2d 251 (1957). It was meet, therefore, that there be exceptions to the general rule that a post conviction proceeding may not serve merely......
-
Gleaton v. State, 351
...of the agreement claimed by the defendant, and, even if one was made, it would not be binding on the court. Hamilton v. Warden, 214 Md. 633, 636, 136 A.2d 251 (1957). As a result of the defendant's appellate counsel having filed in this Court immediately preceding the time set for argument ......
-
Duvall v. State
...lie, even after a plea of guilty has been entered, where it is alleged that the plea was not voluntarily and freely made, Hamilton v. Warden, 214 Md. 633, 136 A.2d 251, Lowe v. State, 111 Md. 1, 73 A. 637, 24 L.R.A.,N.S., 439; and while it was formerly the law that a plea of guilty by a def......
-
Slack v. Warden of Md. Penitentiary
...except those pertaining to his claim that he was misled into pleading guilty to the charge of second degree murder. See Hamilton v. Warden, 214 Md. 633, 136 A.2d 251; Warrington v. Warden, Md., 159 A.2d 360. Cf. Dobson v. Warden, 220 Md. 689, 154 A.2d 921, 922, distinguishing the Hamilton c......