Burnett v. Warden

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Burnett v. Warden

59 A.2d 749, 190 Md. 731, 1947 Md. LEXIS 384

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

DecidedDecember 17, 1947

Docket[H.C. No. 13, October Term, 1947.]

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.2d 749 (Burnett v. Warden) 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

Burnett v. Warden, 59 A.2d 749, 190 Md. 731, 1947 Md. LEXIS 384 (Md. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an application for leave to appeal from refusal of a writ of habeas corpus.

Petitioner alleges that he was convicted of burglary without legal justification because he claims that burglary "is the breaking and entering of a house between 9 P.M. and and 6 A.M.", while the prosecuting witness stated that the house was robbed between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. He says that since he has been in prison he remembers that he was not in Baltimore at the time the crime was committed. He asks that this court summon a number of witnesses to testify here. The questions of guilt or innocence and the sufficiency of the evidence cannot be retried on habeas corpus. Olewiler v. Brady, 185 Md. 341, 344, 44 A.2d 807;Bernard v. Warden of *Page 732 Maryland House of Correction, 187 Md. 273, 49 A.2d 737;Copeland v. Wright, 188 Md. 666, 53 A.2d 553. Of course, no testimony can be taken in this court. Rountree v. Wright,Warden, 189 Md. 292, 55 A.2d 847.

Application denied, without costs.

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

This is an application for leave to appeal from refusal of a writ of habeas corpus.

Petitioner alleges that he was convicted of burglary without legal justification because he claims that burglary "is the breaking and entering of a house between 9 P.M. and and 6 A.M.", while the prosecuting witness stated that the house was robbed between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. He says that since he has been in prison he remembers that he was not in Baltimore at the time the crime was committed. He asks that this court summon a number of witnesses to testify here. The questions of guilt or innocence and the sufficiency of the evidence cannot be retried on habeas corpus. Olewiler v. Brady, 185 Md. 341, 344, 44 A.2d 807;Bernard v. Warden of *Page 732 Maryland House of Correction, 187 Md. 273, 49 A.2d 737;Copeland v. Wright, 188 Md. 666, 53 A.2d 553. Of course, no testimony can be taken in this court. Rountree v. Wright,Warden, 189 Md. 292, 55 A.2d 847.

Application denied, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.2d 749, 190 Md. 731, 1947 Md. LEXIS 384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burnett-v-warden-md-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack