James L. Presley v. Vernon L. Peppersack, Warden, Maryland Penitentiary

Fourth Circuit

James L. Presley v. Vernon L. Peppersack, Warden, Maryland Penitentiary

227 F.2d 325, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3196

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 9, 1955

Docket7042_1

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 227 F.2d 325 (James L. Presley v. Vernon L. Peppersack, 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

James L. Presley v. Vernon L. Peppersack, Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, 227 F.2d 325, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3196 (4th Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in custody under the judgment of a Maryland state court. This imprisonment was inquired into by the Maryland courts in Presley v. Warden, 205 Md. 660, 109 A.2d 922, certiorari denied 348 U.S. 955, 75 S.Ct. 445, where the Court of Appeals of Maryland said:

“This Court has repeatedly stated that the legality of a search and seizure may be raised on appeal but cannot be raised on habeas corpus. Sykes v. Warden, 201 Md. 662, 93 A. 2d 549; Dodson v. Warden, 201 Md. 655, 92 A.2d 754; Presley v. Warden, 201 Md. 660, 92 A.2d 754; Laslo v. Warden, 204 Md. 663, 103 A.2d 342; Barr v. Warden, 200 Md. 657, 90 A.2d 216; nor can the legality of arrest —see Spence v. Warden, 204 Md. 661, 103 A.2d 345; Lewis v. Warden, 203 Md. 676, 100 A.2d 803; Cumberland v. Warden, 205 Md. 646, 109 A.2d 66; nor can his allegations that the police used force and threats to gain incriminating statements from him be raised on habeas corpus — see State ex rel. Freeland v. Warden, 193 Md. 696, 65 A.2d 886, certiorari denied 338 U.S. 836, 70 S. Ct. 45, 94 L.Ed. 511. See also Goodman v. Warden, 190 Md. 746, 60 A. 2d 527, certiorari denied 335 U.S. 847, 69 S.Ct. 58, 93 L.Ed. 397.

*326 “Petitioner’s contention that he was deprived of counsel was answered, as was his contention of unlawful search and seizure without warrant, in his former petition, Presley v. Warden, 201 Md. 660, 92 A.2d 754. See also Daisey v. Warden, 203 Md. 653, 98 A.2d 99, which states that the petitioner has the burden of showing that for want of the opportunity of counsel,' “an ingredient of unfairness operated actively in the process that resulted in his confinement.” ’ Martucci v. Warden, 202 Md. 648, 96 A.2d 490, 491; Selby v. Warden, 201 Md. 653, 92 A.2d 756.”

As the questions which appellant sought to raise by habeas corpus had been adequately considered and properly decided by the courts of the state, the court below was not required to issue the writ. Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 460-465, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469. The appeal from the denial of. the writ is not properly before us, however, for lack of the certificate of probable cause required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253.

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 writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in custody under the judgment of a Maryland state court. This imprisonment was inquired into by the Maryland courts in Presley v. Warden, 205 Md. 660, 109 A.2d 922, certiorari denied 348 U.S. 955, 75 S.Ct. 445, where the Court of Appeals of Maryland said:

“This Court has repeatedly stated that the legality of a search and seizure may be raised on appeal but cannot be raised on habeas corpus. Sykes v. Warden, 201 Md. 662, 93 A. 2d 549; Dodson v. Warden, 201 Md. 655, 92 A.2d 754; Presley v. Warden, 201 Md. 660, 92 A.2d 754; Laslo v. Warden, 204 Md. 663, 103 A.2d 342; Barr v. Warden, 200 Md. 657, 90 A.2d 216; nor can the legality of arrest —see Spence v. Warden, 204 Md. 661, 103 A.2d 345; Lewis v. Warden, 203 Md. 676, 100 A.2d 803; Cumberland v. Warden, 205 Md. 646, 109 A.2d 66; nor can his allegations that the police used force and threats to gain incriminating statements from him be raised on habeas corpus — see State ex rel. Freeland v. Warden, 193 Md. 696, 65 A.2d 886, certiorari denied 338 U.S. 836, 70 S. Ct. 45, 94 L.Ed. 511. See also Goodman v. Warden, 190 Md. 746, 60 A. 2d 527, certiorari denied 335 U.S. 847, 69 S.Ct. 58, 93 L.Ed. 397.

*326 “Petitioner’s contention that he was deprived of counsel was answered, as was his contention of unlawful search and seizure without warrant, in his former petition, Presley v. Warden, 201 Md. 660, 92 A.2d 754. See also Daisey v. Warden, 203 Md. 653, 98 A.2d 99, which states that the petitioner has the burden of showing that for want of the opportunity of counsel,' “an ingredient of unfairness operated actively in the process that resulted in his confinement.” ’ Martucci v. Warden, 202 Md. 648, 96 A.2d 490, 491; Selby v. Warden, 201 Md. 653, 92 A.2d 756.”

As the questions which appellant sought to raise by habeas corpus had been adequately considered and properly decided by the courts of the state, the court below was not required to issue the writ. Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 460-465, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469. The appeal from the denial of. the writ is not properly before us, however, for lack of the certificate of probable cause required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 F.2d 325, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-l-presley-v-vernon-l-peppersack-warden-maryland-penitentiary-ca4-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack