Franklin v. Warden

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Franklin v. Warden

260 A.2d 362, 8 Md. App. 395, 1970 Md. App. LEXIS 359

CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

DecidedJanuary 9, 1970

DocketNo. 36

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 260 A.2d 362 (Franklin v. Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Special Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Franklin v. Warden, 260 A.2d 362, 8 Md. App. 395, 1970 Md. App. LEXIS 359 (Md. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Morton, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an application for leave to appeal from a denial of Post Conviction relief by Judge William W. Travers sitting in the Circuit Court for Dorchester County.

Sometime prior to the filing of this petition, the applicant had apparently sought relief by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corptis at which time counsel was appointed and a hearing thereon was held by Judge Daniel T. Prettyman who denied the petition. The present petition, however, appears to be his first petition under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act. We have consistently held that Md. Rules BK42 and BK44 affirmatively require a hearing upon every first petition filed under the Act and further require that counsel be appointed where it appears that the petitioner is indigent. Yopps v. Warden, 1 Md. App. 537; Taylor v. Director, 1 Md. App. 23. It appears from the record before us that no hearing was held on the applicant’s petition nor was he represented by counsel. Accordingly, the case will be remanded to afford the applicant a hearing and, in the event he is determined, to be an indigent, counsel should be appointed to represent him.

Application for leave to appeal granted and case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

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

Morton, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an application for leave to appeal from a denial of Post Conviction relief by Judge William W. Travers sitting in the Circuit Court for Dorchester County.

Sometime prior to the filing of this petition, the applicant had apparently sought relief by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corptis at which time counsel was appointed and a hearing thereon was held by Judge Daniel T. Prettyman who denied the petition. The present petition, however, appears to be his first petition under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act. We have consistently held that Md. Rules BK42 and BK44 affirmatively require a hearing upon every first petition filed under the Act and further require that counsel be appointed where it appears that the petitioner is indigent. Yopps v. Warden, 1 Md. App. 537; Taylor v. Director, 1 Md. App. 23. It appears from the record before us that no hearing was held on the applicant’s petition nor was he represented by counsel. Accordingly, the case will be remanded to afford the applicant a hearing and, in the event he is determined, to be an indigent, counsel should be appointed to represent him.

Application for leave to appeal granted and case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.2d 362, 8 Md. App. 395, 1970 Md. App. LEXIS 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-v-warden-mdctspecapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack