Holliday v. Warden

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Holliday v. Warden

59 A.2d 777, 190 Md. 732, 1947 Md. LEXIS 385

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

DecidedDecember 17, 1947

Docket[H.C. No. 14, October Term, 1947.]

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 59 A.2d 777 (Holliday 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

Holliday v. Warden, 59 A.2d 777, 190 Md. 732, 1947 Md. LEXIS 385 (Md. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an application for leave to appeal from refusal of a writ of habeas corpus.

The petitioner was sentenced on February 28, 1946, to six years in the Maryland Penitentiary for assault with intent to rob. He was paroled from that institution on October 29, 1946, and returned for violation of his parole on September 5, 1947. He states that his attorney failed to get witnesses in court; that there was no testimony to show that he broke any laws. It does not appear that he asked that witnesses be summoned, whether they were summoned, or what they would testify if present. Rountreev. Wright, Warden, 189 Md. 292, 55 A.2d 847, just decided. The questions of guilt or innocence and the sufficiency of the evidence cannot be retried on habeas corpus. Olewiler v. Brady,185 Md. 341, 344, 44 A.2d 807; Bernard v. Warden of MarylandHouse of Correction, 187 Md. 273, 49 A.2d 737; Copeland v.Wright, 188 Md. 666, 53 A.2d 553.

Application denied, without costs.

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

This is an application for leave to appeal from refusal of a writ of habeas corpus.

The petitioner was sentenced on February 28, 1946, to six years in the Maryland Penitentiary for assault with intent to rob. He was paroled from that institution on October 29, 1946, and returned for violation of his parole on September 5, 1947. He states that his attorney failed to get witnesses in court; that there was no testimony to show that he broke any laws. It does not appear that he asked that witnesses be summoned, whether they were summoned, or what they would testify if present. Rountreev. Wright, Warden, 189 Md. 292, 55 A.2d 847, just decided. The questions of guilt or innocence and the sufficiency of the evidence cannot be retried on habeas corpus. Olewiler v. Brady,185 Md. 341, 344, 44 A.2d 807; Bernard v. Warden of MarylandHouse of Correction, 187 Md. 273, 49 A.2d 737; Copeland v.Wright, 188 Md. 666, 53 A.2d 553.

Application denied, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.2d 777, 190 Md. 732, 1947 Md. LEXIS 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holliday-v-warden-md-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack