Reed v. Warden, Md. House of Correction, 59
| Decision Date | 07 February 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 59,59 |
| Citation | 129 A.2d 92,212 Md. 645 |
| Parties | Jack L. REED v. WARDEN, MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Before BRUNE, C. J., and COLLINS, HENDERSON, HAMMOND and PRESCOTT, JJ.
This is an application for leave to appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus by Judge Michael Paul Smith. The petitioner was tried before Judge Moser in the Criminal Court of Baltimore on an indictment in two counts, one charging burglary and one charging him with being a 'rogue and vagabond'. He was convicted on the second count, but the commitment erroneously showed that he had been convicted of burglary. He was transferred to the Patuxent Institution for examination, and thereafter released after a jury trial, and remanded to the House of Correction.
The petitioner seems to contend that he was deprived of his constitutional rights because his transfer to Patuxent Institution was predicated upon a non-existent conviction of burglary, a felony, whereas he had in fact been convicted of a criminal offense for which he could not have been sent to the Institution. But we have recently held in McElroy v. Director of Patuxent Institution, Md., 127 A.2d 380, 383, that the offense of being a 'rogue and vagabond' is 'a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary', and, as such, within the class of offenses to which the defective delinquency law applies. Moreover, since he was released from that institution after the jury's verdict, he is not now confined under the provisions of that law.
Now would the fact that there was an error in the commitment justify his release from the House of Correction on writ of habeas corpus. We have repeatedly held that such an error calls for correction, not for release. Lewis v. Warden, 209 Md. 625, 120 A.2d 194; Lewis v. Warden, 203, Md. 676, 100 A.2d 803; State ex rel. Justice v. Warden, 203 Md. 651, 97 A.2d 906. We are informed that the correction has been made.
Application denied, with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sas v. State of Maryland
...court. These classifications include both felons and rogues, vagabonds and other offenders against property. See, e. g., Reed v. Warden, 212 Md. 645, 129 A.2d 92 (1957) (rogue and vagabond). See generally Brumbaugh, A New Criminal Code for Maryland?, 23 Md.L.Rev. 1 A convict may be examined......
-
State v. Roberson, 43
...to appeal should be granted. However, the majority opinion on the point was cited with approval in the later case of Reed v. Warden, 212 Md. 645, 646, 129 A.2d 92. In view of the plain meaning of the word 'punishable' and the cases that have ascribed that meaning to it, we cannot hold that ......
- Robertson v. Warden, Md. House of Correction, 60
-
Wain v. Warden of Md. House of Correction, 67
...to constitute an error irregularity which could be corrected, but which would not afford a ground for release on habeas corpus. Reed v. Warden, 212 Md. 645, 646, 129 A.2d 92, and Carter v. Warden, 210 Md. 657, 124 A.2d 574, certiorari denied 352 U.S. 900, 77 S.Ct. 136, 1 L.Ed.2d Application......