Cheeks v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction

133 A.2d 925, 214 Md. 610, 1957 Md. LEXIS 485
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedJuly 30, 1957
DocketH. C. No. 13
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 133 A.2d 925 (Cheeks v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction) 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
Cheeks v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction, 133 A.2d 925, 214 Md. 610, 1957 Md. LEXIS 485 (Md. 1957).

Opinion

Prescott, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

William Cheeks was tried and convicted of the crimes of robbery and larceny and sentenced by Judge Niles to a term of eight years in the Maryland House of Correction, begin[611]*611ning December 27, 1956. Upon being denied a writ of habeas corpus by Judge Allen, he now makes application to appeal from that denial.

He sets forth three contentions in support of his application : (1) that his conviction and confinement are in violation of his constitutional rights; (2) that he was convicted solely on the testimony of a co-defendant, who was not a credible witness; and (3) that he is a pauper who lacks funds with which to seek a new trial or an appeal.

(1) . Where, as in this case, a petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus does not set forth any facts showing how he has been deprived of constitutional rights, the mere allegation that he has been so deprived will not suffice as a basis for the granting of the writ. Lucas v. Warden, 209 Md. 645, 120 A. 2d 913.

(2) . It is well settled that attacks on the competency, admissibility or sufficiency of the evidence cannot serve as the basis for the granting of the writ. Snyder v. Warden, 214 Md. 606, 133 A. 2d 924; Thompson v. Warden, 209 Md. 628, 120 A. 2d 200.

(3) . The petitioner’s allegations under (3) cannot make an application for a writ of habeas corpus serve as a substitute for a motion for a new trial or a direct appeal. Walker v. Wright, 189 Md. 290, 55 A. 2d 848.

Application denied, with costs.

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

Related

Bell v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary
146 A.2d 56 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
133 A.2d 925, 214 Md. 610, 1957 Md. LEXIS 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cheeks-v-warden-of-maryland-house-of-correction-md-1957.