Johann v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Johann v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

187 A.2d 880, 230 Md. 642, 1963 Md. LEXIS 573

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

DecidedJanuary 30, 1963

DocketApp. No. 43

StatusPublished

This text of 187 A.2d 880 (Johann 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

Johann v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary, 187 A.2d 880, 230 Md. 642, 1963 Md. LEXIS 573 (Md. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Pbr Curiam.

In his petition for post conviction relief, John Eugene Johann asserted that he confessed to charges of rape, assault with intent to rape and assault and battery because of certain threats allegedly made by the arresting police officers and that he was improperly represented by trial counsel. After hearing witnesses as to these contentions, Judge James H. Pugh found them to be unsupported by the facts. Subsidiary allegations [643]*643raised by Johann’s petition were said by Judge Pugh in his opinion dismissing the petition to have been either waived or previously finally litigated. For the reasons more specifically set forth in that opinion, the application for leave to appeal is hereby denied.

Application denied.

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

Pbr Curiam.

In his petition for post conviction relief, John Eugene Johann asserted that he confessed to charges of rape, assault with intent to rape and assault and battery because of certain threats allegedly made by the arresting police officers and that he was improperly represented by trial counsel. After hearing witnesses as to these contentions, Judge James H. Pugh found them to be unsupported by the facts. Subsidiary allegations [643]*643raised by Johann’s petition were said by Judge Pugh in his opinion dismissing the petition to have been either waived or previously finally litigated. For the reasons more specifically set forth in that opinion, the application for leave to appeal is hereby denied.

Application denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.2d 880, 230 Md. 642, 1963 Md. LEXIS 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johann-v-warden-of-maryland-penitentiary-md-1963.