Walls v. Warden, Md. Penitentiary
| Decision Date | 28 April 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 75,75 |
| Citation | 242 Md. 401,219 A.2d 6 |
| Parties | Isaac C. WALLS v. WARDEN, MARYLAND PENITENTIARY. Post Conviction |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Before PRESCOTT, C. J., and HAMMOND, HORNEY, MARBURY, and BARNES, JJ.
This petition for post conviction relief presents four contentions, all of which were considered by Judge Harris at a hearing where petitioner testified and called various witnesses. From denial of relief, petitioner seeks leave to appeal. He contends:
1. He was without counsel during his arrest and detention. There is, as yet, no constitutional requirement that a lawyer be furnished a person suspected of crime at the time of his arrest. Judge Harris found that petitioner did not make any statement to the police and did not request an attorney during his detention following arrest. These facts are far removed from the circumstances in Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977, and even if there were factual similarities, it has been held that Escobedo does not apply retrospectively, Hyde v. State, 240 Md. 661, 215 A.2d 145, and petitioner's conviction became final with the decision of his appeal in 1958, Walls v. State, 220 Md. 115, 150 A.2d 926. Since petitioner pleaded not guilty at the preliminary hearing, that stage in the proceedings was not critical to him and the right to counsel did not attach. Evans v. Warden, 240 Md. 333, 214 A.2d 144.
2. The police performed acts of brutality thereby inducing petitoner to enter a guilty plea at his preliminary hearing and such plea was introduced at the trial. Judge Harris determined that the allegation pertaining to the guilty plea was not true and he further found that the evidence produced at the hearing did not substantiate the accusation of police brutality.
3. His conviction was based on perjured testimony which was known to the police to be false. Judge Harris found that no credible evidence was submitted to substantiate this contention. Without a showing that a state officer had a part in procuring perjured testimony or, at the time of trial, knoew it to be perjured, there can be no post conviction relief since the contention reduces itself to an allegation of a conviction based on false testimony and goes to the credibility of the witnesses and so to the sufficiency of the evidence, a matter not reviewable on post conviction, Husk v. Warden, 240 Md. 353, 214 A.2d 139, especially in view of the final determination of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hardy
...proceeding in Maryland.' There is no constitutional requirement that a person be granted counsel at the time of arrest. Walls v. Warden, 242 Md. 401, 219 A.2d 6; Montgomery v. Warden, 1 Md.App. 30, 226 A.2d 687; Ross v. Warden, 1 Md.App. 46, 227 A.2d 42; Cherrix v. Warden, 1 Md.App. 65, 227......
-
Gullion v. Warden, Md. Penitentiary
...be explained on the basis of trial tactics. These are not a grounds for relief. Tucker v. Warden, 243 Md. 331, 220 A.2d 908; Walls v. Warden, 242 Md. 401, 219 A.2d 6; Slater v. Warden, 241 Md. 668, 217 A.2d 344; McCoy v. Warden, 1 Md.App. 108, 227 A.2d 375; Norris v. Warden, 1 Md.App. 69, 2......
-
Gray v. State
...McCray and Riddic. Credibility of a witness is ordinarily not reviewable in a postconviction proceeding. Walls v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, 242 Md. 401, 404, 219 A.2d 6, 7 (1966). As for McCray's recantation itself, we note that it occurred after the death of McCray's friend Shauna, th......
-
Montgomery v. Warden, Md. House of Correction
...S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977. Bunn v. Warden, 242 Md. 399, 219 A.2d 37. Nor is lack of counsel at arrest a ground for relief. Walls v. Warden, 242 Md. 401, 219 A.2d 6. The contention in the petition that he was not advised of his right to counsel, considered in the light of what may be most f......