Waller v. Director, Patuxent Institution

Decision Date21 October 1966
Docket NumberNo. 76,76
Citation223 A.2d 265,244 Md. 229
PartiesMelvin D. WALLER v. DIRECTOR, PATUXENT INSTITUTION. Post Conviction
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

Before HAMMOND, C. J., and HORNEY, MARBURY, BARNES and McWILLIAMS, JJ.

HORNEY, Judge.

In the original application for leave to appeal from the order denying Melvin D. Waller post conviction relief from his imprisonment for assault, the applicant contended as he did below: (1) that he was not confronted with the witness Yetta Schaeffer; (2) that he was never identified in the Phyllis Marcum case; (3) that his rights were violated by the remarks of the State's Attorney; (4) that he was entitled as a matter of law to a directed verdict in the Marcum case; and (5) that his trial and appellate counsel, both court-appointed, were incompetent. Subsequently, however, two other contentions made by the applicant in proper person were received by the Clerk of this Court following the receipt of the original application for leave to appeal. In one, he merely cited Pointer v. State of Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965), apparently as an addendum to the first contention. In the other, the contention is, (6), that he was indicted by an illegally constituted grand jury.

The application for leave to appeal will be denied as to the first four contentions for the reasons stated in the opinion filed by Judge Sklar in the lower court. With further reference, however, to the first contention: if, in citing Pointer, it was the intention of the applicant to also contend that the right to be confronted with the named witness included the right to cross-examine her, we point out that the applicant, in expressly waiving (as the record shows he did) the right to be confronted by the witness, he necessarily also waived the right to cross-examine her. In so holding, we disagree with the inference that Dutton v. State, 123 Md. 373, 91 A. 417 (1914), is not distinguishable on the facts from the present case. In Dutton the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him was neither waivable nor waived under the facts of that case, but in the present case, where the applicant through his counsel stipulated in open court as to the testimony of the absent witness and consented to its being read into the record, it is apparent that the right of confrontation was not only waivable but was in fact waived.

With regard to the fifth contention-to the effect that his trial counsel and appellate counsel (on the direct appeal) were incompetent-it appears that the decision of the hearing judge was not entirely consistent with the existing law. While it was formerly the law that in order to raise a question in a post conviction proceeding as to the incompetence of counsel there either had to be an allegation of fraud or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Mortimer v. Howard Research and Development Corp.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 1 Septiembre 1989
  • Washington v. Balt. Police Dept.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 12 Abril 2023
    ... ... conviction. See e.g. , Waller v. Dir., Patuxent ... Inst. , 244 Md. 229, 232 (1966) (“Moreover, ... ...
  • Palmer v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 9 Enero 1974
    ...showing in the record that counsel in the presence of the accused, has expressly waived the right of confrontation. Waller v. Director, 244 Md. 229, 231, 223 A.2d 265 (1966). If the question is presented on post conviction, appellant will be permitted to show, although it appears doubtful t......
  • Sample v. Warden, Md. Penitentiary
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 18 Febrero 1969
    ...for post conviction relief. Galloway v. Warden, 2 Md.App. 467, 469, 470, 235 A.2d 309 (1967) (by implication); Waller v. Director, 244 Md. 229, 231-232, 223 A.2d 265 (1966); Hyde v. Warden, 235 Md. 641, 646, 202 A.2d 382 (1964). Thus it is evidence that failure to raise the contention at tr......
  • 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