Ralph v. Warden of Md. Penitentiary, 24

Citation230 Md. 616,185 A.2d 366
Decision Date13 November 1962
Docket NumberNo. 24,24
PartiesWilliam RALPH v. WARDEN OF the MARYLAND PENITENTIARY.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

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

MARBURY, Judge.

The applicant was tried before a three judge court, without a jury, and convicted on January 18, 1961, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, on a charge of rape and sentenced to death. He appealed to this Court and the judgment was unanimously affirmed. Ralph v. State, 226 Md. 480, 174 A.2d 163. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. Ralph v. Maryland, 369 U.S. 813, 82 S.Ct. 689, 7 L.Ed.2d 613. On that appeal applicant contended that the extrajudicial confession admitted in evidence over his objection was not his free and voluntary act (1) because he had been questioned over a long period of time (eight and a half hours), (2) because the confession was procured as the result of an inducement (an officer told him 'it would be better if you told the truch'), and (3) because it had been obtained as the result of physical violence on the part of the police (as testified to by the applicant, without corroboration, but denied by the police). This Court considered and rejected all these contentions. Applicant then petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Maryland for a writ of habeas corpus, besing his petition on five contentions, substantially those relied on in this application for leave to appeal, infra, predicated upon alleged violations of his constitutional rights. That court ordered a stay of execution for twenty days so that the applicant could file a proceeding under 'Md.Code, Art. 27, sec. 645A-645J,' and if such should be filed, a continued stay of execution until further order of that court. Ralph v. Pepersack, D.C., 203 F.Supp. 752. The stay was granted upon the answer to the petition by the Attorney General of Maryland to the effect that the applicant had not exhausted his State remedies. The applicant then filed a petition for relief under Code (1962 Cum.Supp.), Article 27, § 645A et seq., Post Conviction Procedure Act, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. Judge Shook, of that court, granted the State's motion to dismiss the petition, saying that applicant's petition did not show any reasons for granting relief which had not been previously litigated or waived in prior proceedings, and that it appeared from the record that no constitutional right had been violated as alleged. In his application to this Court for leave to appeal from the order dismissing his petition he makes five contentions:

(a and b) That his constitutional rights were violated under the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, under Articles 22, 23 and 26 of the Declaration of Rights of Maryland, and under Code (1957), Article 35, § 5, because his confession resulted from improper conduct by and a working arrangement between the police officers of the District of Columbia and Maryland.

(c) That his constitutional rights were violated under the same constitutional and statutory provisions, and under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, in that evidence produced against him was the result of an unlawful arrest, and search and seizure.

(d) Perjured testimony of police officers and illegal search and seizure under the constitutional and statutory provisions alleged in (c) in that police officers testified that certain clothing was removed from his automobile which he denied, but which he claims was obtained from his home through an unlawful search and seizure.

(e) That the confession was extracted from him in violation of the constitutional and statutory provisions as mentioned in (c), the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., requiring that a person arrested by a federal officer must be arraigned without unreasonable or unnecessary delay. Under this rule a person can not be held for an unreasonable time in order to extract a confession when he could have been arraigned...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Ralph v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • December 11, 1970
    ...The Circuit Court for Montgomery County has denied four petitions for post-conviction relief: Misc.Pet. 2593, aff'd, Ralph v. Warden, 230 Md. 616, 185 A.2d 366 (1962); Misc.Pet. 3171; Misc. Pet. 3354, aff'd, Ralph v. Warden, 245 Md. 74, 224 A.2d 851 (1966); and Misc. Pet. 3869, leave to app......
  • Hunt v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • August 3, 1964
    ...denied, 368 U.S. 846, 82 S.Ct. 74, 7 L.Ed.2d 43 (1961). 15 Cf. Berman v. Warden, 232 Md. 642, 193 A.2d 551 (1963); Ralph v. Warden, 230 Md. 616, 620, 185 A.2d 366, 368 (1962). Comparison of these holdings with the very recent Franklin decision shows the trend to broaden the scope of PCPA 16......
  • DeToro v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • February 20, 1967
    ...Ralph v. Maryland, 369 U.S. 813, 82 S.Ct. 689, 7 L.Ed.2d 613 (1962); Ralph v. Pepersack, D.Md., 203 F.Supp. 752 (1962); Ralph v. Warden, 230 Md. 616, 185 A.2d 366 (1962); Ralph v. Pepersack, D.Md., 218 F.Supp. 932 (1963), aff'd, 4 Cir., 335 F.2d 128 (1964), cert. den. 380 U.S. 925, 85 S. Ct......
  • Ralph v. Pepersack
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • July 1, 1963
    ...the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. An application for leave to appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals of Maryland. Ralph v. Warden, 230 Md. 616, 185 A.2d 366. The Circuit Court granted the State's motion to dismiss the petition under the PCPA, saying that applicant's petition did n......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT