Nichols v. Warden of Md. House of Correction
| Decision Date | 21 October 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 26,26 |
| Citation | 232 Md. 663,194 A.2d 444 |
| Parties | Paul NICHOLS v. WARDEN OF the MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION. Post Conviction |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.
Paul Nichols was convicted of assault and battery by Judge Rollins sitting without a jury in the Circuit Court for Queen Anne's County, on May 3, 1961, and sentenced to three years in the Maryland House of Correction. Thereafter, Nichols was tried for violation of the Maryland lottery laws by Judge Keating and Judge Rasin in the same court, and on May 8, 1961, was convicted and sentenced to one year in the Maryland House of Correction, the sentence to run consecutively with the sentence imposed in the previously mentioned proceeding.
On February 21, 1963, Nichols filed a petition for relief under the Post Conviction Procedure Act from his conviction for violation of the lottery laws, alleging that: (1) the evidence used against him was seized illegally without a warrant; (2) his case was improperly conducted by his counsel, because he failed to prove that the State's evidence was illegally seized, and he did not cross-examine the State's witness; and (3) a part of the trial was conducted out of his presence. Following a hearing which lasted some four and one-half hours, petitioner's application for relief was denied.
Nichols stated in his application that he was sentenced hearing on his petition for post conviction relief; however, if he was, he was wrong, because the record on appeal clearly indicates that Judge Keating and Judge Rasin conducted the lottery trial below.
Judge Carter noted in his memorandum that 'the accused himself testified that he gave the officer permission to search [Nichols' dwelling] for the purpose of determining whether there was a gun in the premises.' It was during that search that evidence of violation of the lottery laws was seized, and then at the trial introduced against petitioner, notwithstanding his objections. 'It is my general understanding,' Judge Carter continued, 'that when permission for a search is given that if the searching authority in the course thereof discovers evidence of other illegal activity such evidence is considered to have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lievers v. State
...that which justified the arrest. Braxton v. State, 234 Md. 1, 197 A.2d 841; Edwards v. State, 196 Md. 233, 76 A.2d 132; Nichols v. Warden, 232 Md. 663, 194 A.2d 444.2 See 16 Am.Jur.2d, Conspiracy, § 18, p. 137; Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347, 32 S.Ct. 793, 56 L.Ed. 1114; Brown v. Ellio......
-
State v. Laro
...v. United States, 325 F.2d 880, 884 (5th Cir. 1964); State v. Morris, 243 S.C. 225, 234, 133 S.E.2d 744; Nicholas v. Warden of Md. House of Correction, 232 Md. 663, 194 A.2d 444; State v. Hauser, 257 N.C. 158, 125 S.E. 389; see State v. Baron, 106 N.H. 149, 151, 207 A.2d 447; State v. Cooli......
-
Braxton v. State, 178
... ... and articles in the car were taken by the police to the station house. An hour or so later, it was learned that a nearby tavern had been broken ... used to convict for violation of gambling laws in Maryland); Nichols v. Warden, 232 Md. 663, 194 A.2d 444 (search by permission for a gun ... ...
-
Midgett v. Warden, Maryland State Penitentiary
...by failure to take a point up on direct appeal, but in both cases the court refrained from doing so. In one case Nichols v. Warden, etc., 232 Md. 663, 194 A.2d 444 (1963), where no direct appeal was taken, the court affirmed a lower court decision on the merits of a PCPA petition involving ......