Hornes v. Warden, Md. House of Correction

• Court: Maryland Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Before BRUNE; PRESCOTT
• Citation: Hornes v. Warden, Md. House of Correction, 202 A.2d 643, 235 Md. 673 (Md. 1964)
• Decision Date: 29 July 1964
• Docket Number: No. 153,153
• Parties: Thomas Harris HORNES v. WARDEN, MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION. Post Conviction

Page 673

235 Md. 673

202 A.2d 643

Thomas Harris HORNES v. WARDEN, MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION.

Post Conviction No. 153.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

July 29, 1964.

Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.

PRESCOTT, Judge.

In his application for leave to appeal, the applicant raised nine contentions. Judge Carter, in his opinion, dealt fully and properly with all of them except 2, 3 and 5. We, therefore, supplement his opinion as follows:

2. 'That his home was illegally searched.' No 'fruits' of any search were offered at his trial; hence if there were an illegal search of his home, it was an immaterial matter in his criminal prosecution.

3. 'That he was denied the right to call counsel or his family and that he was not advised of his rights to have counsel.' At his hearing below, applicant made no mention of having requested anyone to call a lawyer or his family, or to permit him to do so. With reference to the allegation that he was not advised of his right to have counsel, the allegation does not state the time to which it refers (he was represented by court-appointed attorneys at his trial and the hearing herein below). At the hearing below, applicant's counsel asked no questions concerning this allegation, and no other evidence was produced concerning it. He pleaded guilty at his trial and freely testified at his hearing herein that he was guilty of the offense charged. Under these circumstances, we hold that the applicant failed to sustain the allegation. Compare Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 84 S.Ct. 1758.

5. 'Tha...