Davis v. Warden

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Davis v. Warden

139 A.2d 245, 215 Md. 660, 1958 Md. LEXIS 389

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

DecidedMarch 3, 1958

DocketH. C. No. 94

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A.2d 245 (Davis 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

Davis v. Warden, 139 A.2d 245, 215 Md. 660, 1958 Md. LEXIS 389 (Md. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Henderson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an application for leave to appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner was convicted of robbery by a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, and sentenced to ten years. He contends that a confession was improperly obtained, and that the evidence was insufficient, or insufficiently corroborated. We have repeatedly held that such questions cannot be raised on habeas corpus. He also complains of the ineptness of his court-appointed lawyer, but does not allege that he complained to the court at the time of trial, or allege any facts that would amount to a denial of due process. A motion for new trial was heard and denied by the Supreme Bench.

Application denied, with costs.

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

Henderson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an application for leave to appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner was convicted of robbery by a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, and sentenced to ten years. He contends that a confession was improperly obtained, and that the evidence was insufficient, or insufficiently corroborated. We have repeatedly held that such questions cannot be raised on habeas corpus. He also complains of the ineptness of his court-appointed lawyer, but does not allege that he complained to the court at the time of trial, or allege any facts that would amount to a denial of due process. A motion for new trial was heard and denied by the Supreme Bench.

Application denied, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.2d 245, 215 Md. 660, 1958 Md. LEXIS 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-warden-md-1958.