Hamm v. Warden, Md. Penitentiary
| Decision Date | 10 May 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 130,130 |
| Citation | 238 Md. 633,209 A.2d 785 |
| Parties | Lloyd HAMM v. WARDEN, MARYLAND PENITENTIARY. Post Conviction |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Before PRESCOTT, C. J., and HORNEY, MARBURY, OPPENHEIMER, and BARNES, JJ.
This is an application for leave to appeal from an order entered by Judge Joseph R. Byrnes, sitting in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, denying relief under the Maryland Post Conviction Procedure Act (the Act) on October 26, 1964, after a hearing thereon.
On May 3, 1963, the applicant, Lloyd Hamm, was tried and convicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore before Judge Anselm Sodaro, sitting without a jury, of robbery with a deadly weapon and sentenced to serve twenty years in the Maryland Penitentiary. At the trial, Franklin Knox, a co-defendant, testified to the applicant's participation in the robberty, although Knox had denied the applicant's complicity at the preliminary hearing. We affirmed that conviction in Hamm v. State, 233 Md. 248, 196 A.2d 464 (1964), , that the mere showing of contradictory statements of Knox made at different times did not require his testimony to be stricken. We noted that the credibility of the witnesses is primarily for the trier of facts. At the hearing on this petition before Judge Byrnes on October 26, Knox stated that his testimony before Judge Sodaro implicating the applicant in the robbery was untrue.
On these facts, the applicant raises three contentions, namely, (1) Suppression of evidence by the State, (2) Ineptitude of counsel constituting a denial of the effective assistance of counsel, and (3) Knowing use of perjured testimony by the State.
The first contention amounts to no more than a bare allegation without supporting facts. Under such circumstances the question is not properly before us. Md.Rule BK46 b. To support his second contention the applicant points to what he claims to be the inadequate amount of time counsel spent conferring with him at the penitentiary prior to trial as factual support for an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel. We have held elsewhere that ineffective assistance of counsel, though available as a ground for post conviction relief, must go to the fairness of the trial. Hyde v. Warden, 235 Md. 641, 646, 202 A.2d 382 (1964) and cases therein cited. In any event, even if we were to agree that such a complaint is a proper question to be reviewed by way of post conviction proceedings, we cannot say that short...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flansburg v. State
...may properly be heard in a post conviction proceeding. Pressley v. Warden, 242 Md. 405, 408, 219 A.2d 25 (1966); Hamm v. Warden, 238 Md. 633, 635, 209 A.2d 785 (1965); Bryant v. Warden, 235 Md. 658, 660, 202 A.2d 721 (1964); Hyde v. Warden, 235 Md. 641, 646-47, 202 A.2d 382 (1964); Ward v. ......
-
Watson v. Warden, Md. Penitentiary
...this contention is no more than a bald allegation without supporting facts in the record and affords no basis for relief. Hamm v. Warden, 238 Md. 633, 209 A.2d 785. As to the fourth allegation, the applicant contended that certain police officers perjured themselves at the trial, by testify......
-
Pressley v. Warden, Md. House of Correction, 98
...representation was so deficient as to go to the very fairness of the trial. Bryant v. Warden, 235 Md. 658, 202 A.2d 721; Hamm v. Warden, 238 Md. 633, 209 A.2d 785. Judge Carter concluded, based on the considerable experience of the lawyer in trial work and the record of the trial, that peti......
-
Johnson v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 113
...voluntary and we see no reason to disturb that finding. Contention (7) is a bare allegation without supporting facts. Hamm v. Warden, 238 Md. 633, 209 A.2d 785 (1965). Application ...