Cooper v. Warden
This text of 225 Md. 630 (Cooper 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.
Opinion
The sole contention on this application for leave to appeal from a denial of post conviction relief is that the applicant is entitled to a belated direct appeal to this Court from his conviction on September 27, 1957, of an assault with intent to murder.
Instead of setting forth the errors which would have constituted grounds for direct review, if he had any, the applicant, claiming that he was illiterate, unfamiliar with legal procedures and unaware of his right to appeal, contends that his court-appointed counsel failed to discuss with or advise him [631]*631of the right to appeal. He did not allege any fraud, bad faith or collusion by his trial counsel with a state official. It was for these reasons that Shure, J., denied relief. The denial was proper. Failure of counsel to advise a defendant of his right to an appeal is not the equivalent of a denial of that right and is not a ground for post conviction relief. Scott v. Warden, 223 Md. 667, 164 A. 2d 270 (1960).
Application denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
225 Md. 630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooper-v-warden-md-1961.