Warrington v. Warden of Md. Penitentiary

• Decision Date: 18 March 1960
• Docket Number: No. 86,86
• Citation: 222 Md. 601,159 A.2d 360
• Parties: Donald F. WARRINGTON v. WARDEN OF THE MARYLAND PENITENTIARY. Post Conviction
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 601

222 Md. 601

159 A.2d 360

Donald F. WARRINGTON v. WARDEN OF THE MARYLAND PENITENTIARY.

Post Conviction No. 86.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

March 18, 1960.

Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.

HAMMOND, Judge.

On October 30, 1953, Warrington, then on probation, was arraigned and pleaded guilty in the Criminal Court of Baltimore to eleven indictments for burglary. Because of the number and seriousness of the charges, Judge Joseph L. Carter accepted these guilty pleas only tentatively and appointed experienced and competent defense counsel. The cases came on for trial on November 17, 1953, at which time Warrington submitted under his former guilty pleas.

Although the record does not show it, the memorandum of the State says that Judge Carter caused testimony to be taken, witnesses to be cross-examined, and both the defendant and his attorney to be heard from. Ten-year sentences were then imposed under each of the indictments, those in the first three cases to run consecutively and those in the last eight to run concurrently, making a total of thirty years to begin at the expiration of an eight-year sentence previously imposed by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County in connection with other cases. Warrington did not move for a new trial nor seek an appeal.

Now, over six years later, he asks leave to appeal from denial of relief under the Post Conviction Procedure Act by Judge Joseph R. Byrnes. He says Judge Byrnes erred in rejecting these contentions:

1. He was the victim of an illegal arrest and search.

2. He was convicted without evidence being produced.

3. His attorney did nothing to protect his interests.

4. The trial judge misinformed him as to the law pertaining to the time of his eligibility for parole.

5. He made admissions and confessions under police duress and pleaded guilty because the police promised leniency.

The first three of these cannot be raised in a post conviction case (illegal arrest and search, Brooks v. Warden, 218 Md. 650, 145 A.2d 569; Mears v. Warden, 220 Md. 682, 155 A.2d 72; insufficiency of the evidence and inadequacy of counsel, Banks v. Warden, Md., 155 A.2d 697). Judge Byrnes found the fourth to be untrue.

In making his fifth contention Warrington alleges that subsequent to his 'illegal' arrest and the 'illegal' search of his home and seizure of articles therein, the police arrested his wife and threatened to charge her with possession of stolen goods unless he helped them, but said that if he cooperated he would get light and concurrent sentences on all the crimes he was charged with so that he would come up for parole within a short time. He says that in reliance on these threats and promises he cooperated with both the City and Baltimore County police in helping them clear up unsolved crimes by agreeing to plead guilty to them even though he had no knowledge of them, with the understanding that whatever sentence he got in the County would be all he would have to serve. The police then released his wife (but told him she would be rearrested if he did not go through with his promise). He pleaded guilty in Baltimore County and was sentenced to eight years but, shortly thereafter, upon pleading guilty in Baltimore City, was sentenced to thirty years more.

Ordinarily, the fact that a petitioner pleads guilty disposes of any contentions he may make thereafter regarding the admissibility or propriety of his confessions. Claims that guilty pleas were erroneously entered or wrongfully induced, usually do not furnish grounds for post conviction...