Roberts v. Warden Md. House of Correction, 1
| Decision Date | 14 June 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 223 Md. 635,161 A.2d 668 |
| Parties | Charles Henry ROBERTS v. WARDEN MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION. Postconviction |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
This is the second time that Charles Henry Roberts, after having entered pleas of guilty before the trial magistrate, 1 has sought relief in a collateral proceeding from the convictions--from which he did not appeal to the Circuit Court for Wicomico County--for six violations of the motor vehicle and criminal laws. The violations included a charge of making a false affidavit to an application for an operator's license, a charge of failing to stop at the scene of the accident, and four charges of manslaughter by automobile arising out of a single accident. Maximum sentences aggregating 14 years were imposed and maximum fines totaling $5,500 were levied. This is an application for leave to appeal from a denial of postconviction relief. The previous application for leave to appeal was from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus. See Roberts v. Warden, 1958, 217 Md. 656, 143 A.2d 79.
In the habeas corpus proceeding (217 Md. 656, 143 A.2d 79), the applicant claimed (i) that the trial magistrate was without jurisdiction to try him; (ii) that he had been denied a trial by jury; (iii) that the prison sentences aggregating fourteen years were excessive and illegal; and (iv) that the failure to appoint counsel to defend him was a violation of his constitutional rights. The application was denied on all points. In this postconviction proceeding, though in somewhat different form, the applicant renewed points (i) [lack of jurisdiction], (iii) [excessiveness of sentences] and (iv) [failure to appoint trial counsel]; and asserted a new point to the effect that the trial magistrate was prejudiced against him.
The record is clear that counsel for the applicant at the postconviction hearing abandoned points (i) and (iv) and the new point concerning the alleged prejudice of the trial magistrate. There is no doubt, of course, that the contention as to lack of jurisdiction [point (i)] and failure to appoint trial counsel [point (iv)], having been previously and finally litigated in the prior habeas corpus proceeding, may not be relitigated in this postconviction proceeding. Code (1959 Cum.Supp.), Art. 27, § 645A; Roberts v Warden, 1959, 221 Md. 576, 155 A.2d 891. It might also be said that the contention as to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wampler v. Warden of Md. Penitentiary
...proceedings. Preston v. Warden, 225 Md. 628, 169 A.2d 407, cert. den. 366 U.S. 974, 81 S.Ct. 1940, 6 L.Ed.2d 1262; Roberts v. Warden, 223 Md. 635, 161 A.2d 668. The applicant urges that it is a constitutional doctrine. Under the law of this State it is not, though the rule against double je......
-
Wampler v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary
...proceedings. Preston v. Warden, 225 Md. 628, 169 A.2d 407, cert. den. 366 U.S. 974, 81 S.Ct. 1940, 6 L.Ed.2d 1262; Roberts v. Warden, 223 Md. 635, 161 A.2d 668. The applicant urges that it is a constitutional doctrine. Under the law of this State it is not, though the rule against double je......
-
Holt v. Warden of Md. Penitentiary
...of Maryland as well), may not be relitigated in this post conviction proceeding. Code (1959 Cum.Supp.), Art. 27, § 645A(a); Roberts v. Warden, Md., 161 A.2d 668. Absent a showing that his incarceration was the result of an element of unfairness which might not have arisen had he had legal r......
-
Campbell v. Warden of Md. Penitentiary, 26
...proceeding. See, for example, Burgess v. Warden, 221 Md. 610, 156 A.2d 794, as to the sufficiency of the evidence; and Roberts v. Warden, 223 Md. 635, 161 A.2d 668, and Young v. Warden, 218 Md. 636, 145 A.2d 238, as to double Application denied. ...