State ex rel. Freeland v. Warden of Md. Penitentiary

• Decision Date: 27 April 1949
• Docket Number: 30.
• Citation: 65 A.2d 886,193 Md. 696
• Parties: STATE ex rel. FREELAND v. WARDEN OF MARYLAND PENITENTIARY.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

65 A.2d 886

193 Md. 696

STATE ex rel. FREELAND v. WARDEN OF MARYLAND PENITENTIARY.

No. 30.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

April 27, 1949

Habeas corpus proceeding by the State of Maryland, on the relation of Earl Randall Freeland, against Warden of Maryland Penitentiary. From refusal of writ of habeas corpus, relator applies for leave to appeal.

Application denied.

Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS GRASON, HENDERSON, and MARKELL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Earl Randall Freeland, sentenced to the Maryland Penitentiary for 7 1/2 years for the crime of robbery with deadly weapon, has applied here for leave to appeal from refusal of a writ of habeas corpus.

Petitioner says that he was committed in January, 1946, to the Federal Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, and while in that penitentiary the Maryland authorities filed a detainer against him. He says that, before the expiration of the term at Leavenworth, he refused to sign a waiver of extradition to the State of Maryland; that he was thereupon ordered to be sent to the Federal Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania and that he objected because he had arranged to have an attorney represent him at an extradition hearing in Kansas. He claims that he was transferred from Leavenworth to Lewisburg in order that he would be more easily available to the Maryland authorities. He alleges that, after he refused to submit to the transfer, he was brutally beaten and forcibly transferred to Lewisburg; and that as a result of that treatment he arrived there in a highly nervous state and on the verge of collapse.

Petitioner also alleges that on December 15, 1947, he was taken to the Central Police Station in Baltimore, where he made a request to be allowed counsel, but this right was denied him and he was subjected to exhaustive questioning. He complains that he was questioned 'on and off' during a period of about 36 hours. He claims that he made his confession when he was mentally and physically exhausted.

He further alleges that on December 17 he was taken to the Baltimore City Jail, and on December 18 he was brought before Judge Sherbow in the Criminal Court for arraignment. He contends that he was deprived of his constitutional right because he was not allowed to have counsel until after he had been questioned, and he was forced to make his confession of guilt.

There is no merit in the contention that he was compelled to be 'a witness against...