Bulluck v. Warden

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Bulluck v. Warden

236 A.2d 755, 2 Md. App. 643, 1967 Md. App. LEXIS 314

CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

DecidedDecember 21, 1967

DocketNo. 85

StatusPublished

This text of 236 A.2d 755 (Bulluck v. Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Special Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bulluck v. Warden, 236 A.2d 755, 2 Md. App. 643, 1967 Md. App. LEXIS 314 (Md. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an application for leave to appeal from an order ■filed on July 10, 1967, by Judge Joseph R. Byrnes, sitting in ■the Criminal Court of Baltimore, denying relief sought by applicant’s fourth petition under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act.

Since the application failed to “contain a brief statement of the reasons why the order should be reversed or modified” as required by Maryland Rule BK 46 (b), relief could be denied ■on this ground alone. Goetzke v. Warden, 1 Md. App. 3.

In any event, Judge Byrnes found that the allegations of “inexperienced counsel” and “overzealous judge” were deemed to be waived and that the allegation of “illegal search and seizure” was deemed to have been finally litigated under Md. ■Code (1967 Repl. Vol.) Art. 27, § 645A (b) (c). The petition •presented no special circumstances to excuse the failure to [645]*645raise the first two allegations in prior proceedings nor to rebut the presumption that the petitioner intelligently and knowingly failed to make them. The third allegation was raised in applicant’s third petition, disposed of by the order denying the relief prayed and application for leave to appeal from the order was denied. Bulluck v. Warden, 239 Md. 716. We agree that the first two allegations were waived and the third allegation finally litigated, § 645A (d) not being applicable.

There was no error in the dismissal of the fourth petition for relief without a hearing or appointment of counsel. See Bagley v. Warden, 1 Md. App. 154; Taylor v. Director, 1 Md. App. 23; Md. Rule BK48.¹

Application denied.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an application for leave to appeal from an order ■filed on July 10, 1967, by Judge Joseph R. Byrnes, sitting in ■the Criminal Court of Baltimore, denying relief sought by applicant’s fourth petition under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act.

Since the application failed to “contain a brief statement of the reasons why the order should be reversed or modified” as required by Maryland Rule BK 46 (b), relief could be denied ■on this ground alone. Goetzke v. Warden, 1 Md. App. 3.

In any event, Judge Byrnes found that the allegations of “inexperienced counsel” and “overzealous judge” were deemed to be waived and that the allegation of “illegal search and seizure” was deemed to have been finally litigated under Md. ■Code (1967 Repl. Vol.) Art. 27, § 645A (b) (c). The petition •presented no special circumstances to excuse the failure to [645]*645raise the first two allegations in prior proceedings nor to rebut the presumption that the petitioner intelligently and knowingly failed to make them. The third allegation was raised in applicant’s third petition, disposed of by the order denying the relief prayed and application for leave to appeal from the order was denied. Bulluck v. Warden, 239 Md. 716. We agree that the first two allegations were waived and the third allegation finally litigated, § 645A (d) not being applicable.

There was no error in the dismissal of the fourth petition for relief without a hearing or appointment of counsel. See Bagley v. Warden, 1 Md. App. 154; Taylor v. Director, 1 Md. App. 23; Md. Rule BK48.¹

Application denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.2d 755, 2 Md. App. 643, 1967 Md. App. LEXIS 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bulluck-v-warden-mdctspecapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack