Cumberland v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

109 A.2d 66, 205 Md. 646
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedOctober 12, 2001
Docket[H.C. No. 12, October Term, 1954.]
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 109 A.2d 66 (Cumberland 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
Cumberland v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary, 109 A.2d 66, 205 Md. 646 (Md. 2001).

Opinion

Henderson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an application for leave to appeal from a denial of a writ of habeas corpus by Judge Harris, in the Circuit Court for Allegany County. Petitioner was convicted on six charges of forgery in the Criminal Court of Baltimore and sentenced to a term of four years. He contends (1) that his arrest was illegal, (2) that he was held incommunicado for four days and not allowed to communicate with his family in an effort to obtain counsel, (3) that court-appointed counsel entered pleas of guilty to six of the charges without his consent and, in effect, denied him a jury trial, and (4) that the State produced no witnesses against him.

We have repeatedly held that after trial and conviction the legality of arrest cannot be inquired into upon habeas corpus. Spence v. Warden, 204 Md. 661. Nor can the extent or legality of his initial detention. Bowie v. *648 Warden, 190 Md. 728; Taylor v. Warden, 201 Md. 656; Fisher v. Swenson, 192 Md. 717. He admits that counsel was appointed to defend him, and there is no allegation that he complained to the court as to the conduct or competency of the counsel appointed. Gillum v. Warden, 200 Md. 656; Thanos v. Superintendent, 204 Md. 665. Nor is there any allegation that he objected to the pleas of guilty entered by his counsel. Counsel, of course, had a right to speak for the accused both in the matter of jury trial and plea of guilty. Ahern v. Warden, 203 Md. 672; Adkins v. Warden, 196 Md. 652; State Ex Rel. Freeland v. Warden, 193 Md. 696; Battle v. Warden, 190 Md. 720. If the defendant acquiesces, the point could not be raised even on direct appeal where the scope of review is far wider. Banks v. State, 203 Md. 488, 497; Rose v. State, 177 Md. 577, 581. Of course, if the plea of guilty was entered without objection in the presence of the accused, as we must assume, there was no occasion for the State to produce witnesses to prove the charges. Lockman v. Warden, 203 Md. 657; State Ex Rel. Jordan v. Warden, 191 Md. 753.

Application denied, with costs.

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

Related

Plater v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction
126 A.2d 574 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2001)
White v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary
126 A.2d 294 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2001)
Presley v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary
109 A.2d 922 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2001)
Tyler v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary
109 A.2d 919 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2001)
Jackson v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary
125 A.2d 840 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2001)
Wagner v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary
109 A.2d 118 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2001)
Smith v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction
114 A.2d 892 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2001)
Countess v. State
408 A.2d 1302 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1979)
Savoy v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction
139 A.2d 257 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1977)
Gleaton v. State
201 A.2d 353 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1964)
Gans v. Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary
196 A.2d 632 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1964)
Brown v. State
164 A.2d 722 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1960)
State Ex Rel. Rajala v. Rigg
101 N.W.2d 608 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1960)
In re Morelli
148 N.E.2d 96 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1956)
Harry L. Cumberland v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
227 F.2d 310 (Fourth Circuit, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
109 A.2d 66, 205 Md. 646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cumberland-v-warden-of-maryland-penitentiary-md-2001.