Thanos v. Superintendent, Md. State Reformatory for Males, 27

• Decision Date: 19 May 1954
• Docket Number: No. 27,27
• Citation: 104 A.2d 926,204 Md. 665
• Parties: THANOS v. SUPERINTENDENT, MARYLAND STATE REFORMATORY FOR MALES.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 665

204 Md. 665

104 A.2d 926

THANOS v. SUPERINTENDENT, MARYLAND STATE REFORMATORY FOR MALES.

No. 27.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

May 19, 1954.

Before BRUNE, C. J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and HAMMOND, JJ.

BRUNE, Chief Justice.

This is an application for leave to appeal from a denial of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Petitioner was tried and convicted of burglary in the Criminal Court of Baltimore and was sentenced to an indeterminate term of three years in the Maryland State Reformatory for Males. Petitioner's contentions in this Court are:

(1) That the police and alleged accomplice who testified against him perjured themselves, claiming specifically that the police testified falsely that he had made an oral confession of guilt;

(2) That the evidence was insufficient to convict;

(3) That the counsel appointed by the trial court to represent him was incompetent in that he seemed to take no interest in the outcome of the case and in that he advised petitioner not to testify in his own behalf; and

(4) That the trial judge lacked impartiality by reason of the fact that he had previously tried five defendants who were apparently involved in the same crime.

No transcript of the proceedings in the trial court has been filed in this Court.

(1) and (2). 'The legal sufficiency of the evidence or the question of guilt or innocence, or the commission of perjury by witnesses, cannot be made a basis for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.' Chinquina v. Warden, 198 Md. 658, 659, 80 A.2d 612, 613; State ex rel. Thompson v. Warden, 198 Md. 668, 670, 81 A.2d 596, 597. If the testimony of the witnesses against the accused was perjured, as he now charges, redress lies with the pardoning power. State ex rel. Billman v. Warden, 197 Md. 683, 79 A.2d 540.

(3) This Court has refused to recognize the contention of ineptness, lack of diligence, or incompetency of counsel as a ground for the issuance of the writ, at least in the absence of any allegations of fraud, bad faith or collusion by defense counsel with any State official; and the application in this case does not suggest any ground for any such allegation of misconduct, nor does the petitioner appear to have made any complaint to the trial judge with regard to his court appointed counsel. Sykes v. Warden, 201 Md. 662, 93 A.2d 549; Bowen v. Warden, Md., 96 A.2d 489.

(4) This Court has recently stated that, in the absence of a constitutional or statutory provision to the contrary, the Judge who presided at the trial of a case which is reversed on appeal and remanded for a new trial is not disqualified to retry the case. Board of Medical Examiners v. Steward, Md., 102 A.2d 248, 252. The principle seems sufficiently broad to...