White v. Warden of Md. Penitentiary
| Decision Date | 22 October 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 18,18 |
| Citation | 184 A.2d 840,229 Md. 645 |
| Parties | Eddie WHITE, Sr. v. WARDEN OF the MARYLAND PENITENTIARY. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Before HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and MARBURY, JJ.
This is an application for leave to appeal under the P.C.P.A. In his petition below, applicant asserted seven grounds as to why he thought he was entitled to relief. The reasons set forth in Judge Niles' opinion below clearly show that grounds 2 through 7, both inclusive, avail him nothing. His first contention was couched in the form of a question: 'Did petitioner's attorney defend him properly?' It will be immediately noted that this first question failed to comply with the Acts of 1958, Ch. 44, Section 645 D, in force at the time of the filing of his petition (this Act was repealed by the Acts of 1962, Ch. 36 § 1, and is now, in amended form, found in Maryland Rule BK 41, effective as of January 1, 1962), wherein it was provided that the petition should 'specifically set forth the grounds upon which the petition is based.' In addition, his very experienced and able counsel, Herbert Myerberg, Esquire, appointed by the court, did not offer any evidence on this point, nor did he press it in argument below. The record before us fails to show any ineptitude on the part of his counsel at his original trial, much less such a lack of proper representation as to violate his constitutional rights. Smallwood v. Warden, 205 F.Supp. 325 (U.S.D.C., D.Md.); Turner v. State of Maryland, 303 F.2d 507 (U.S.C.A., 4th Cir.).
In the present application for leave to appeal, he attempts to raise three additional complaints: that he was denied the right to have an attorney of his own choice (he fails to make it clear whether he claims that he was denied the right to employ counsel of his own choice at his original trial, whether he was denied the right to select a court-appointed attorney of his choice at said trial, or whether he was denied the right to select the court-appointed counsel at his post-conviction trial below); that the State suppressed evidence favorable to him; and that the State offered perjured testimony, knowing the same was untrue. It is clear that the raising of these questions for the first time in an application for leave to appeal is impermissible. Code (Cum.Supp.1962), Article 27, Section 645 H; Burgess v. Warden, 221 Md. 610, 156 A.2d 794. Moreover, it is likewise clear that the record fails to show any denial of an opportunity to employ counsel of his own selection at his trial;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. Brough
...permitted a hearing on his petition. Application for leave to appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals of Maryland in White v. Warden, 229 Md. 645, 184 A.2d 840 (1962). Petitioner then filed application for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Maryl......
-
State v. Long
...To the same effect, see Johnson v. Warden, 222 Md. 587, 158 A.2d 119, Gamble v. Warden, 223 Md. 633, 161 A.2d 450, and White v. Warden, 229 Md. 645, 184 A.2d 840. In Klein v. Warden, 233 Md. 603, 604, 195 A.2d 608, where the complaint was the ineptness of counsel we held that a copy of the ......
- DeBlasis v. Vestry of Addison Parish, Diocese of Washington, Inc.
-
Palmer v. Warden of Md. House of Correction, 2
...that the prosecuting officers knowingly suppressed evidence tending to exculpate him. Both contentions come too late. White v. Warden, 229 Md. 645, 647, 184 A.2d 840; Whitley v. Warden, 222 Md. 608, 612, 158 A.2d 905, cert. den. 364 U.S. 808, 81 S.Ct. 75, 5 L.Ed.2d 42. Even if not too late ......