Myers v. Director of Patuxent Inst.
| Decision Date | 13 December 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 66,66 |
| Citation | 195 A.2d 716,233 Md. 621 |
| Parties | Alvin Lee MYERS v. DIRECTOR OF the PATUXENT INSTITUTION. Post Conviction |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Before HENDERSON, HAMMOND, HORNEY, MARBURY, and SYBERT, JJ.
In his petition for post conviction relief. the applicant's contentions fell into the following categories: (1) applicant's constitutional rights (due process) were denied; (2) the investigating officers were negligent (failed to produce documents and records); (3) evidence was suppressed; (4) illegal search and seizure; (5) applicant's witnesses were not produced in court; (6) error in sentencing (sentenced to 20 years from April 19, 1962 when crime for which he was convicted allegedly took place on April 29, 1962; (7) incompetency of counsel because of his 'failure to produce records, and individuals pertinent to his case'; (8) use of prejured testimony.
For the reasons stated by Judge Cullen in the lower court, the applicant was not entitled to post conviction relief for any of the reasons asserted in the first, second, third, fifth, sixth or eighth contentions.
As to the fourth contention, the hearing judge simply stated that a claim of illegal search and seizure affords no ground for relief in a post conviction proceeding. However, as pointed out by this Court in Hayden v. Warden of Md. Penitentiary Md., 195 A.2d 692, (1963) this question should first have been considered as one of fact rather than as a question of law. In regard to the seventh contention, the hearing judge did not find, as a matter of fact, whether there was evidence to support the claim of incompetency of counsel. Therefore the case will be remanded so that the lower court may determine these two questions as matters of fact.
Leave to appeal granted and case remanded for further proceedings as to questions (4) and (7).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rush v. State
...assistance of counsel claims are best reviewed by a trial court rather than an appellate court); Myers v. Director of the Patuxent Institution, 233 Md. 621, 622, 195 A.2d 716, 716-17 (1963) (in post-conviction context, remanding case to hearing judge when adequate findings of fact upon whic......
-
Hunt v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
...proceeding for consideration of a claim that no counsel was appointed at the trial of the petitioner. Similarly, in Myers v. Director, 233 Md. 621, 195 A.2d 716 (1963), a hearing was ordered on the petitioner's complaint that court-appointed counsel was incompetent because of a "failure to ......
-
Hyde v. Warden of Md. Penitentiary
...has been made in the trial court. These limitations are no longer recognized. See Myers v. Director (a post conviction case), 233 Md. 621, 195 A.2d 716, in which the case was remanded for the determination of two claims, one of which was the alleged incompetence of counsel. See also the fol......
-
Galloway v. Warden, Md. Penitentiary
...Penitentiary, 244 Md. 720, 224 A.2d 274; Hyde v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary, 235 Md. 641, 202 A.2d 382; Myers v. Director of Patuxent Inst., 233 Md. 621, 195 A.2d 716; Ross v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, 1 Md.App. 46, 227 A.2d 42. While applicant's first petition raising competency ......