Jenkins v. Warden, Md. Penitentiary

Decision Date26 July 1968
Docket NumberNo. 152,152
Citation4 Md.App. 629,244 A.2d 468
PartiesDavid JENKINS v. WARDEN, MARYLAND PENITENTIARY. Post Conviction
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.

ORTH, Judge.

This is an application for leave to appeal from a denial by Judge Shirley B. Jones, sitting in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, of relief sought by the applicant in his petition under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act. On 22 February 1964 the applicant was found guilty of murder in the first degree and robbery with a deadly weapon. On 6 April 1964 he was sentenced to death on the murder conviction and to twenty years on the robbery conviction, to run concurrently with the death sentence. He appealed the judgments but the case was eventually remanded 1 under the rulings of Schowgurow v. State, 240 Md. 121, 213 A.2d 475 and Smith v. State, 240 Md. 464, 214 A.2d 563. He elected to void the indictments. He was reindicted and a new trial was held before Judge J. Harold Grady under a charge of murder. 2 On 31 March 1967 Judge Grady, sitting without a jury, found the applicant guilty of murder in the second degree and imposed the maximum sentence of eighteen years, dating from 31 March 1967. 3

In his petition for Post Conviction Relief, the applicant's sole allegation was that he should have been given credit for all time served in jail from the date of his initial arrest, 4 February 1963, to the date on which the sentence which he is presently serving was imposed, 31 March 1967, and that failure to give such credit resulted in a sentence exceeding the statutory limitation of eighteen years for second degree murder. He was denied relief on 5 December 1967 by Judge Jones on the ground that there was no requirement that the applicant be given credit for any time served prior to his second trial on 31 March 1967, and that it was discretionary with the trial judge as to whether or not he would give credit for jail time served.

In Reeves v. State, 3 Md.App. 195, 238 A.2d 307, Reeves had been convicted of rape and sentenced to life imprisonment. The conviction was vitiated as a result of Habeas Corpus proceedings in the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Reeves v. Warden, 346 F.2d 915. He was retried and the maximum sentence of 20 years allowed by state under the jury's verdict was imposed, but with no credit given for the prison time served under the first sentence. We held that Reeves was entitled to credit on his second sentence for the time served since the imposition of his original sentence, as otherwise the second sentence would exceed the maximum permitted by law. We felt that to say that the second sentence was proper because it, per se, did not exceed the maximum, was to take 'a myopic view of its results, which we cannot accept if fundaental fairness is to prevail'. 3 Md.App. p. 204, 238 A.2d p. 313. We think Reeves is controlling when the lower court, on retrial, after sentence was imposed at a first trial 'hears the case as if it were being tried for the first time, and considers the entire matters of verdict, judgment and sentence as if...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Wright v. Maryland Penitentiary, State of Maryland
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • June 23, 1970
    ...205 Md. 642, 109 A.2d 51 (1954); Williams v. State of Maryland, 2 Md.App. 170, 234 A.2d 260 (1967); but see Jenkins v. Warden, Md. Pen., 4 Md.App. 629, 244 A.2d 468 (1968); Reeves v. State of Maryland, 3 Md.App. 195, 238 A.2d 307 (1968), the district court reasoned that Wright's sentence wa......
  • Jones v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • March 29, 1971
    ...the Williams' holding as appropriate under the 'circumstances of that case.' 3 Md.App. at 204, 238 A.2d 307. In Jenkins v. Warden, 4 Md.App. 629, 244 A.2d 468, we reaffirmed Reeves and held that by giving no credit for the time served under Jenkins' first sentence, the lower court, in effec......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT