Hanson v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary

Fourth Circuit

Hanson v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary

198 F.2d 470, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3193

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 18, 1952

Docket6421_1

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 198 F.2d 470 (Hanson v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hanson v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, 198 F.2d 470, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3193 (4th Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM. .

This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant is imprisoned under a sentence of five years imposed by a Maryland state court when he pleaded guilty to a count of an indictment charging violation of section 34 of Article 27 of the Maryland Code, making it a crime punishable by not more than 10 years imprisonment to break into a storehouse or warehouse with intent to steal goods of. a value of more than twenty-five dollars. Appellant complains because a subsequent count of the indictment charges larceny, of goods of a value of less than twenty-five dollars. He complains also that he was not represented by counsel and that a confession by him was not properly obtained. Similar petitions have been denied by the courts of Maryland with denial of certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States. Hanson v. Warden, Md., 75 A.2d 924, certiorari denied 340 U.S. 879, 71 S.Ct. 118, 95 L.Ed. 639; Hanson v. Warden, Md., 83 A.2d 927, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 898, 72 S.Ct. 234.

It is perfectly clear that the petition for habeas corpus and the appeal from the order denying it are entirely without merit. The confession complained of is without importance in view of the prisoner’s plea of guilty, and failure to provide counsel in a state court, where the offense is not punishable by death, does not of itself amount to a denial of due process. Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, 62 S.Ct. 1252, 86 L.Ed. 1595. So far as the length of sentence is concerned, it is within the limits authorized by statute for the offense charged in the indictment and to which appellant pleaded guilty, and his guilt of this offense is not negatived by reason of the fact that a subsequent count of the indictment charged larceny of goods of a less value than that charged in the breaking and entering count. We are without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, however, and must dismiss it because there is no certificate of probable cause for the appeal signed by the judge below, as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253. Berman v. Swenson, Warden, 4 Cir., 177 F.2d 717; Bernard v. Brady, Warden, 4 Cir., 164 F.2d 881.

Appeal dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM. .

This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant is imprisoned under a sentence of five years imposed by a Maryland state court when he pleaded guilty to a count of an indictment charging violation of section 34 of Article 27 of the Maryland Code, making it a crime punishable by not more than 10 years imprisonment to break into a storehouse or warehouse with intent to steal goods of. a value of more than twenty-five dollars. Appellant complains because a subsequent count of the indictment charges larceny, of goods of a value of less than twenty-five dollars. He complains also that he was not represented by counsel and that a confession by him was not properly obtained. Similar petitions have been denied by the courts of Maryland with denial of certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States. Hanson v. Warden, Md., 75 A.2d 924, certiorari denied 340 U.S. 879, 71 S.Ct. 118, 95 L.Ed. 639; Hanson v. Warden, Md., 83 A.2d 927, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 898, 72 S.Ct. 234.

It is perfectly clear that the petition for habeas corpus and the appeal from the order denying it are entirely without merit. The confession complained of is without importance in view of the prisoner’s plea of guilty, and failure to provide counsel in a state court, where the offense is not punishable by death, does not of itself amount to a denial of due process. Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, 62 S.Ct. 1252, 86 L.Ed. 1595. So far as the length of sentence is concerned, it is within the limits authorized by statute for the offense charged in the indictment and to which appellant pleaded guilty, and his guilt of this offense is not negatived by reason of the fact that a subsequent count of the indictment charged larceny of goods of a less value than that charged in the breaking and entering count. We are without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, however, and must dismiss it because there is no certificate of probable cause for the appeal signed by the judge below, as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253. Berman v. Swenson, Warden, 4 Cir., 177 F.2d 717; Bernard v. Brady, Warden, 4 Cir., 164 F.2d 881.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 F.2d 470, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanson-v-warden-maryland-penitentiary-ca4-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack