Johns v. State, 194

• Decision Date: 27 March 1958
• Docket Number: No. 194,194
• Parties: Albert C. JOHNS v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 218

216 Md. 218

140 A.2d 56

Albert C. JOHNS v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 194.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

March 27, 1958.

Albert C. John in pro. per.

James H. Norris, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. (C. Ferdinand Sybert, Atty. Gen., and J. Harold Grady, State's Atty., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

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

HAMMOND, Judge.

Albert C. Johns appeals from denial in 1957 by the Criminal Court of Baltimore of his application for the writ of error coram nobis and his motion to strike judgment and sentence of imprisonment for life imposed in 1938 for first degree murder by three Judges of that court, after the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City had denied a new trial. Since 1950, he has filed some sixty petitions or writs in various courts, including the District Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, the Supreme Court of the United States, and this Court. All have been denied.

In Johns v. Warden, 205 Md. 644, 108 A.2d 906, his claims that he did not receive a copy of the indictment and was denied a chance to summon his witnesses, and his allegation, without supporting facts, that perjured testimony was sued, were held not to be bases for the writ of habeas corpus. In Johns v. Warden, 207 Md. 624, 628, 113 A.2d 891, 893, the Court considered at some length his allegations that Maggie Maitland, the principal if not the only, witness against him, gave perjured testimony and that the State's Attorney knew that her testimony was untrue, and said: 'We are of opinion that the recital of the testimony of Maggie Maitland, here alleged, is not sufficient to show either that she committed perjury or that the State's officers knew that her testimony was perjured. The weight of such testimony was for the trier of facts.' In Johns v. Warden, 210 Md. 666, 124 A.2d 283, we reviewed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he included a motion to strike the judgment and sentence and a writ of error coram nobis. Judge Carter, sitting in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, denied both the motion to strike and the application for a writ of error coram nobis, and Judge Niles, sitting in the City Court, refused to grant the writ of habeas corpus. No appeal was taken from Judge Carter's denials, and we concluded that '* * * the correctness of the Court's action in denying them is not before us', and found no error in the action of Judge Niles since Johns had raised no points that had not already been found insufficient to justify the granting of the writ of habeas corpus.

Thereafter, Johns filed a new application for the writ of error coram nobis, and a month later a motion to strike judgment and sentence. Judge Warnken denied both the application and the motion, and four days later, Johns noted an appeal.

The relief sought is based on claims that his trial was fraudulent because false and perjured testimony was given by Maggie Maitland. Perhaps because the issue had already been decided against him in Johns v. Warden, 207 Md. 624, 113 A.2d 891, he does not now charge that the State knowingly participated in the use of testimony alleged to have been false. Johns says that Maggie Maitland testified falsely in stating under oath that she knew him for a year and a half, which was the period she worked in a tavern that he frequented. He says that he has proof that this was not true since on two different occasions in the year and a half, he was serving a sentence in the Maryland House of Correction, although he admits that for approximately two months he did frequent the tavern where Maggie Maitland worked. Johns further contends that Maggie Maitland placed a...