Ledbetter v. Warden of Md. Penitentiary, 95

• Decision Date: 04 May 1964
• Docket Number: No. 95,95
• Citation: 200 A.2d 81,234 Md. 643
• Parties: John F. LEDBETTER v. WARDEN OF the MARYLAND PENITENTIARY. Post Conviction
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 643

234 Md. 643

200 A.2d 81

John F. LEDBETTER v. WARDEN OF the MARYLAND PENITENTIARY.

Post Conviction No. 95.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

May 4, 1964.

Before HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and MARBURY, JJ.

HENDERSON, Judge.

In this application for leave to appeal from a denial of post conviction relief, the applicant raised some sixteen questions, all but two of which were adequately answered by Judge Foster in the court below. Ledbetter was tried and convicted in 1960, along with three other boys, of first degree murder in a yoking case. All were sentenced to life imprisonment. Ledbetter appealed to this court and the judgment was affirmed. Ledbetter v. State, 224 Md. 271, 167 A.2d 596. The only points raised on appeal were the sufficiency of the evidence and inconsistency in the verdicts (he was acquitted of robbery). In the present proceeding he contends that his arrest and a search of his house were illegal, and that his confessions were involuntary.

Judge Foster dismissed these contentions with the statement that they cannot be raised in a post conviction proceeding. That is no longer true since the decision in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961), and later Supreme Court decisions. Some matters formerly treated as procedural, or mere rules of evidence, have now been elevated to the status of constitutional rights. See Edwards v. Warden, 232 Md. 667, 668, 195 A.2d 40, and Davis v. Warden, 232 Md. 670, 195 A.2d 37. The original trial in the instant case was before Mapp. But the record extract in the former appeal shows clearly that the present contentions are without merit, so we find it unnecessary to remand the case for further consideration by the court below. Cf. Boston v. Warden, 233 Md. 623, 624, 195 A.2d 726, and Dyson v. Warden, 233 Md. 630, 634, 196 A.2d 455, even if we assume that Mapp is retroactive.

The applicant concedes that nothing was taken from his house as a result of the alleged illegal search. Cf. Young v. Warden, 233 Md. 596, 599, 195 A.2d 713, and Slater v. Warden, 233 Md. 609, 611, 195 A.2d 675. The only tangible property offered in evidence was a ring belonging to the decedent recovered from one of the other boys. According to Ledbetter it was never in his possession. There is nothing to show affirmatively that the arrest of the applicant was illegal. One of the other boys, called Jerry, was identified and told still another boy (who testified at Ledbetter's trial) about the yoking. Presumably the police obtained the names of the othr boys from Jerry. It may be inferred that the police had probable cause to arrest upon reliable information, and if they did,...