Appitito v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

80 A.2d 37, 197 Md. 687, 1951 Md. LEXIS 289
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedApril 11, 1951
DocketH. C. No. 27
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 80 A.2d 37 (Appitito v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Appitito v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary, 80 A.2d 37, 197 Md. 687, 1951 Md. LEXIS 289 (Md. 1951).

Opinion

Markell, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an application for leave to appeal from denial of a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioners are imprisoned under sentence of ten years for breaking and entering (Code, Art. 27, sec. 34), feloniously stealing (sec. 387), and breaking and entering and stealing (sec. 35). They were convicted on all three counts of an information making these three charges. The sentence of ten years was warranted under any one count. They were represented by counsel at their trial and on appeal. Their appeal was dismissed because (before the Criminal Rules of Procedure became effective) it presented no appealable question of law, .but sought only a review of the legal sufficiency of the evidence. Juratovac v. State, 193 Md. 561, 69 A. 2d 247. They now allege that the information was defective because vague and uncertain, that they could not lawfully be convicted of a felony on an information, or of a misdemeanor except on a plea of guilty (but see Acts of 1945, ch. 788; 1947 Supp., Art. 27, sec. 637), that the third count (under sec. 35) was a duplication of the first two (under sections 34 and 387) and subjected them to double jeopardy and double punishment, and that various other procedural errors occurred, none of which indicate denial of any fundamental rights. All the contentions now made could have been made on appeal and cannot be heard on habeas corpus.

Application denied, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Leek v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction
109 A.2d 57 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2001)
Wain v. Warden
138 A.2d 482 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
80 A.2d 37, 197 Md. 687, 1951 Md. LEXIS 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/appitito-v-warden-of-maryland-penitentiary-md-1951.