Gamble v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Gamble v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

161 A.2d 450, 223 Md. 633, 1960 Md. LEXIS 542

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

DecidedJune 14, 1960

Docket[P.C. No. 107, September Term, 1959.]

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 161 A.2d 450 (Gamble 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

Gamble v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary, 161 A.2d 450, 223 Md. 633, 1960 Md. LEXIS 542 (Md. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

This is an application for leave to appeal from the denial of post conviction relief.

*634 The applicant, who was convicted of murder in the second degree of one victim and of assault with intent to murder another victim, was sentenced to eighteen years for the graver offense and to five years for the lesser offense, the sentences to run consecutively. In his application for relief the applicant complained (i) that he was innocent; (ii) that the evidence was insufficient to justify conviction; (iii) that he was denied his right of appeal because his trial counsel did not inform him of such right; (iv) that three of the state’s witnesses committed perjury though it was not alleged that the State knew of or participated in the use of perjured testimony ; (v) that the trial of the case was improperly conducted though it was not alleged that he complained to the court of the incompetence of his counsel; (vi) that he was informed and believed that a “person or persons withheld evidence” favorable to the applicant; and (vii) that the sentence of eighteen years for second degree murder was excessive.

Even a cursory examination of these contentions will disclose that none states a justiciable ground for relief. All of them are either without merit or are the type which should have been raised either on appeal or a motion for a new trial instead of in this collateral proceeding. The action of Chief Judge Niles denying the relief sought and dismissing the petition was therefore proper.

In separate requests addressed to and filed in this Court, the applicant asked for transcripts of the record of the original trial and of the post conviction hearing. These requests are denied. There is nothing in the record forwarded with this application for leave to appeal to indicate that either transcript would serve any useful purpose. Ingram v. Warden, 221 Md. 597, 155 A. 2d 668 (1959). See also McClung v. Warden, 221 Md. 596, 155 A. 2d 893 (1959).

Application denied.

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

Pee Cueiam.

This is an application for leave to appeal from the denial of post conviction relief.

*634 The applicant, who was convicted of murder in the second degree of one victim and of assault with intent to murder another victim, was sentenced to eighteen years for the graver offense and to five years for the lesser offense, the sentences to run consecutively. In his application for relief the applicant complained (i) that he was innocent; (ii) that the evidence was insufficient to justify conviction; (iii) that he was denied his right of appeal because his trial counsel did not inform him of such right; (iv) that three of the state’s witnesses committed perjury though it was not alleged that the State knew of or participated in the use of perjured testimony ; (v) that the trial of the case was improperly conducted though it was not alleged that he complained to the court of the incompetence of his counsel; (vi) that he was informed and believed that a “person or persons withheld evidence” favorable to the applicant; and (vii) that the sentence of eighteen years for second degree murder was excessive.

Even a cursory examination of these contentions will disclose that none states a justiciable ground for relief. All of them are either without merit or are the type which should have been raised either on appeal or a motion for a new trial instead of in this collateral proceeding. The action of Chief Judge Niles denying the relief sought and dismissing the petition was therefore proper.

In separate requests addressed to and filed in this Court, the applicant asked for transcripts of the record of the original trial and of the post conviction hearing. These requests are denied. There is nothing in the record forwarded with this application for leave to appeal to indicate that either transcript would serve any useful purpose. Ingram v. Warden, 221 Md. 597, 155 A. 2d 668 (1959). See also McClung v. Warden, 221 Md. 596, 155 A. 2d 893 (1959).

Application denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 A.2d 450, 223 Md. 633, 1960 Md. LEXIS 542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gamble-v-warden-of-maryland-penitentiary-md-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack