Midgett v. Warden, Maryland State Penitentiary
Decision Date | 11 June 1963 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 11867. |
Citation | 217 F. Supp. 843 |
Parties | Curtis Edward MIDGETT v. WARDEN, MARYLAND STATE PENITENTIARY. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
This is a third petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in this Court by Midgett. His first petition was denied because he had not exhausted his state remedies. His second petition was denied on April 27, 1961, partly for that reason and partly on the merits. A certificate of probable cause was denied by this Court, and on June 22, 1961 by Chief Judge Sobeloff of the Fourth Circuit.
Thereafter, Midgett filed a proceeding under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act in the Criminal Court of Baltimore City, raising 25 points. That petition was dismissed by Judge Jones, who wrote an elaborate opinion, which was adopted by the Court of Appeals of Maryland when it denied Midgett's application for leave to appeal therefrom. Midgett v. Warden, 229 Md. 617, 182 A. 2d 52.
The present petition sets out seven "reasons presented" for granting the writ, a confusing "statement of the case", a four-page statement of "contentions" and a two-page statement in which eight "constitutional questions presented" are set out. It is difficult to tell exactly what points are being raised at this time and what is a matter of historical relation.
The clearest way to deal with these contentions is the way they were treated by Judge Jones, considering first the points based upon incidents before the first trial, then points arising out of the first trial, points based upon incidents before the second trial and finally points arising out of the second trial.
The following statement of the proceedings is taken from the Memorandum Order of Judge Sobeloff dated June 22, 1961.
In addition to the proceedings in this Court and the PCPA proceeding before Judge Jones, Midgett has filed at least five petitions for habeas corpus in the Baltimore City Court, each of which was denied.
(1) In one or more prior proceedings Midgett has raised the point that the State improperly added another charge, kidnapping, after he was arrested in Florida and extradited to Maryland on charges of armed robbery and assault. Judge Sobeloff noted that fact without comment in his Memorandum Order of June 22, 1961. Judge Jones disposed of the point as follows:
In his present petition Midgett adds a new allegation — that he waived extradition on "the assurance of said Maryland detectives that the specified charges alleged in said Governor's warrant would be the only charges that petitioner would have to face and/or answer upon his return to Maryland State". If this allegation adds anything to the facts heretofore brought to the attention of the State Courts, this Court should not consider the point until the State Courts have had an opportunity to consider the new matter. If the allegation does not add anything to the previous contention, it was properly disposed of by Judge Jones and cannot serve as the basis for federal habeas corpus relief.
(2) Petitioner alleges that he was denied his right to a hearing before a magistrate, was denied his right to be confronted by the witnesses against him at such a hearing, and was denied his right to bail. He also alleges in the present petition, apparently for the first time, that a confession was obtained from him by threats that his wife would be charged, after he had been denied the right to call counsel. Judge Jones stated:
Except with respect to the allegedly coerced confession, Midgett has no grounds for relief at this time based upon the alleged denial of a magistrate's hearing, the alleged denial of bail or the alleged denial of counsel after arrest and before arraignment. Insofar as these allegations may be pertinent in connection with the use against him at his second trial of a coerced confession, they afford no ground for relief to petitioner in this Court at this time, since the question whether the confession should be considered to have been coerced because of these factors, plus the newly alleged threats with respect to his wife, has never been raised before a state court in a post conviction proceeding. In the interest of comity, this Court should require that the state courts have an opportunity to hear and dispose of the question raised by the present allegations of fact before this Court takes any action thereon.
Petitioner contends that Judge Warnken was guilty of "illegal procedure" at his first trial. Any relief based on this point must be denied because the conviction and sentence at the first trial were reversed on appeal, Midgett v. State, 216 Md. 26, 139 A.2d 209, so Midgett is not now serving a sentence imposed as a result of the first trial.
Petitioner contends that he was denied a speedy trial on remand. This point was disposed of by Judge Jones as follows:
A consideration of the various papers filed and considered by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Corbett v. Patterson
...It is generally said that the denial of bail is not an available basis for seeking post-conviction relief, see, e. g., Midgett v. Warden, 217 F.Supp. 843, 846 (D.Md.1963). However, since petitioner claims that the denial deprived him of the assistance of counsel and of a fair trial, we shal......
-
Midgett v. McClelland
...on both of these contentions were settled against them by the District Court for Maryland in a habeas application. In Midgett v. Warden, 217 F.Supp. 843, 848 (D.C.Md.1963) it was held that there was no possibility of double jeopardy by the second indictment of kidnapping or in the assault T......
-
Midgett v. McClelland
...for writ of habeas corpus before Chief Judge Thomsen of this Court in a Memorandum and Order dated June 11, 1963, and reported at 217 F.Supp. 843 (D.Md.1963). Judge Thomsen stated, "There can be no question about the propriety of the decision of the Judge Jones on this point," quoting exten......
-
Midgett v. Warden, Md. Penitentiary, 79
...the way applicant also found time for five habeas corpus petitions and a visit to the Federal courts. Midgett v. Warden, Maryland State Penitentiary, 217 F.Supp. 843 (D.Md.1963), aff'd 329 F.2d 185 (4th In the course of a long, careful, comprehensive opinion Judge Harris, who presided at th......