Smith v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary

Decision Date15 July 1968
Docket NumberNo. 144,144
Citation4 Md.App. 550,243 A.2d 897
PartiesRonald Harry SMITH v. WARDEN, MARYLAND PENITENTIARY. Post Conviction
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland



Ronald Harry Smith seeks leave to appeal from the denial of relief under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act by Judge T. Hunt Mayfield, presiding in the Circuit Court for Howard County, after an evidentiary hearing at which he was represented by appointed counsel.

The applicant was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Howard County of first degree murder on 4 June 1966. A life sentence was imposed. He did not appeal from the judgment. On 10 July 1967 he filed a petition for relief under the U.P.C.P.A. in which he presented eight allegations, which in substance were as follows:

1) that he did not receive a fair trial because of unfavorable publicity through newspapers and other news media, and that the Judge was prejudiced.

2) that the State's Attorney had made certain remarks in his opening statement to the jury which were not borne out by the evidence and which prejudiced the jury.

3) that the court erred in allowing photographs of the deceased victim to be admitted into evidence.

4) that the court should have granted a separate jury trial on the question of his insanity; that the issue of insanity, as well as the issue of guilt or innocence, were both submitted to the same jury, which jury, in determining his guilt, had overlooked the issue of insanity.

5) that the Director of Clifton T. Perkins Hospital and the representative of the Department of Mental Hygiene were prejudiced in their testimony.

6) that the evidence admitted at his trial was obtained through illegal search and seizure and was, therefore, improperly admitted into evidence.

7) that the court erroneously admitted into evidence his confession in the absence of proper warning, contrary to the rule of Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 8) that the Anne Arundel County Police Department had withheld pertinent information, which if presented, would have been sufficient to have placed considerable doubt on the reliability of certain witnesses.

The application for leave to appeal does not contain a statement of the reasons why the order should be reversed or modified as required by Md.Rule BK46 b, and may be denied on this ground alone. Goetzke v. Warden, 1 Md.App. 3, 226 A.2d 361. In any event, the allegations provide no grounds entitling the applicant to relief.

The first, second, third, fifth, sixth and seventh allegations are deemed to have been waived as they could have been raised on direct appeal, there being no special circumstances shown to excuse the failure to raise them and the presumption that the applicant intelligently and knowingly failed to make them not being rebutted. Md.Code, (1967 Repl. Vol.) Art. 27, § 645A(c). Section 645A(d) is not applicable. Also the first, second and fifth allegations are made without adequate specification and as bald allegations afford no grounds for relief. Ross v. Warden, 1 Md.App. 46, 227 A.2d 42. With further regard to the sixth allegation a contention as to illegal search and seizure is properly raised on direct appeal and failure to take such appeal precludes it from being raised in a post conviction procedure. Archer v. Director, 1 Md.App. 18, 226 A.2d 356. With further...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • September 28, 1973
    ...if presented, would have been sufficient to have placed considerable doubt on the reliability of certain witnesses. 3 Smith v. Warden, 4 Md.App. 550, 243 A.2d 897 (1967), in which the Court wrote (at 553, 243 A.2d at 898) : The first, second, third, fifth, sixth and seventh allegations are ......
  • Veney v. Warden, Md. Penitentiary
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • November 9, 1970
    ...failure on appeal to raise his objections to the introduction of Mrs. Mitchell's testimony. In this regard see and compare Smith v. Warden, 4 Md.App. 550, 243 A.2d 897, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 989, 89 S.Ct. 470, 21 L.Ed.2d 451 (1968), where the Court of Appeals declined to allow a petitioner......
  • Oken v. Corcoran
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • May 1, 2000
    ...587 (1988), by Maryland courts. See, e.g., McElroy v. State, 617 A.2d 1068, 1070, 1075 (Md. 1993); Smith v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, 243 A.2d 897, 898 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1968), cert. denied sub nom. Smith v. Maryland, 393 U.S. 989 (1968); Anglin v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 232......
  • Boone v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • October 13, 1983
    ...this court has determined that bald allegations, made without adequate specification, afford no grounds for relief. Smith v. Warden, 4 Md.App. 550, 243 A.2d 897 (1968); Hess v. State, 4 Md.App. 508, 243 A.2d 651 (1968); Ross v. Warden, 1 Md.App. 46, 227 A.2d 42 (1967); Norris v. Warden, 1 M......
  • 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