Wright v. Warden, Md. Penitentiary
| Decision Date | 28 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 176,176 |
| Citation | 11 Md.App. 673,276 A.2d 411 |
| Parties | Elijah WRIGHT v. WARDEN, MARYLAND PENITENTIARY. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Joseph H. Thomas, Jr., Baltimore, for appellant.
Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., of Maryland, Howard L. Cardin, State's Atty., for Baltimore City, for appellee.
Presented to MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH, THOMPSON, and POWERS, JJ.
On December 18, 1964, Elijah Wright was arrested and charged with murder. He was taken into custody at that time and has remained incarcerated to the present time. Approximately two years after his arrest, Wright was tried and found guilty by a jury of murder in the second degree. 1 The trial judge sentenced him to eighteen years, the maximum then provided for murder in the second degree. The judge refused to give Wright credit on his sentence for the time he spent in pretrial custody.
By various proceedings and in different courts, Wright pressed his contention that he was entitled to credit on his sentence for time spent in pretrial custody. On December 20, 1967, we affirmed the trial court's denial of credit in an unreported opinion, Wright v. State, #40, September Term, 19679 On April 22, 1968, the Court Term, 1967. On April 22, 1968, the Court 1968, Wright filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Federal District Court. He claimed that unless he was given credit for the time he spent in pretrial custody he would be subjected to a sentence greater than the maximum allowed by Maryland law. His petition was denied on the ground that under Maryland law, State v. Ewell, 234 Md. 56, 198 A.2d 275, the sentencing judge was not required to give Wright credit for time spent in jail prior to sentence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the District Court's judgment; it held that Wright's claim raised substantial constitutional questions under North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656, which had not been considered by the Maryland courts. Wright v. Warden, 4 Cir., 429 F.2d 1101. The court directed that on remand to the District Court, Wright was to be given ninety days to seek relief in the State courts under the Post Conviction Procedure Act; and that should he fail to do so, his petition was to be dismissed. Subsequently, Wright filed a petition in the Criminal Court of Baltimore seeking post conviction relief. The petition was denied by Judge Shirley B. Jones on November 30, 1970. She held that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parker v. State
...1973, ch. 2. According to the Revisor's Note, the second sentence of C.J. § 12-702(a) was new, and “state[d] the rule of Wright v. State, 11 Md.App. 673 (1971),” in which the Court said, id. at 675, 276 A.2d 411, that “the Maryland Legislature, in providing a statutory maximum sentence, int......
-
Mohr v. Jordan, Civ. No. 73-370-H.
...be calculated by including time spent in jail before trial. Jones v. Maryland, 11 Md.App. 468, 275 A.2d 508 (1971); Wright v. Maryland, 11 Md.App. 673, 276 A.2d 411 (1971). However, the Maryland courts have further consistently ruled that a defendant is not entitled to such credit in other ......
-
Ex parte Parker, 45984
...by Acts 1967, 60th Leg., p. 718, ch. 299, § 2, eff. Aug. 28, 1967.'3 On remand, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, Wright v. Warden, 11 Md.App. 673, 276 A.2d 411, specifically relying on statutory, not constitutional, grounds held that a defendant is entitled to credit for pre-trial ......
- Floyd v. State