Lloyd v. Warden of Md. Penitentiary, 119

• Decision Date: 03 July 1958
• Docket Number: No. 119,119
• Citation: 217 Md. 667,143 A.2d 483
• Parties: Andrew J. LLOYD v. WARDEN OF the MARYLAND PENITENTIARY.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 667

217 Md. 667

143 A.2d 483

Andrew J. LLOYD v. WARDEN OF the MARYLAND PENITENTIARY.

No. 119.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

July 3, 1958.

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

HENDERSON, Judge.

This is an application for leave to appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus by Judge Mason, in the Baltimore City Court. The applicant was convicted by a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore on two charges of assault and one charge of receiving stolen goods, and on February 18, 1957, was sentenced by Judge Warnken to three months and eighteen months, respectively, on the assault charges, and three years on the other charge, all to run consecutively, or a total of four years and nine months. In the instant case he raises several questions of alleged errors in the course of the trial, none of which can be considered on habeas corpus, but which could be considered on appeal. His main contention, however, is that he was denied a right to perfect an appeal, because of a refusal to supply him with a transcript of the record.

At the trial the accused was represented by counsel of his own selection. After the verdict, counsel filed a motion for a new trial and requested a free transcript of the record, but the request was refused and counsel did not press the motion. After sentence, counsel for the accused noted an appeal to this Court and again requested that the trial court furnish a free transcript, on the ground that the accused was impecunious. Judge Warnken again refused the request, stating that, since the accused claimed ownership of three automobiles, and some $260 in cash was found on his person at the time of his arrest, the court was not satisfied that he was impecunious. It does not appear that these facts were further contested in the Criminal Court.

Counsel for the accused then filed a petition with the Board of Public Works, alleging that the defendant was without funds to obtain a transcript of the record, and requesting that the Board supply funds for that purpose. He also filed a petition in this Court for an extension of time for filing the record until thirty days after action upon his petition by the Board of Public Works. We granted the extension. The Board sought the advice of the Attorney General, who recommended that the petition be denied on the basis of the findings of Judge Warnken. Counsel for the accused then informed the Board that 'of the three automobiles mentioned, one is junk, another was sold to pay the cost of towing and storage, and the third, the only good one, was seized by the finance company and no equity was realized from the seizure. The $260 mentioned went as part payment of counsel fee.' He reiterated his claim that the accused was in fact impecunious at that time. It does not appear that any hearing was held, but on July 22, 1957, the Board notified the petitioner that his request had been refused. Counsel for the accused then withdrew from the case and the appeal was not perfected. Application for habeas corpus was filed in proper person on December 31, 1957. Judge Mason based his refusal of the writ on the findings of Judge Warnken that the accused was not impecunious.

In Griffin v. People of State of Illinois, 1956, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891, the Supreme Court held that an indigent defendant who takes a timely appeal but is unable to perfect it because of his poverty, is denied a right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal constitution. In such a case, an applicant is either entitled to release upon habeas corpus, or to a transcript of the record at state expense and hearing on appeal. Cf. Dowd v. United States ex rel. Cook, 340 U.S. 206, 71 S.Ct. 262, 95 L.Ed. 215. In the recent case of Eskridge v. Washington State Board of Prison Terms and Paroles, 78 S.Ct. 1061, the Supreme Court, on...