Martin v. Warden
This text of 244 A.2d 475 (Martin v. Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Special Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The application of Napoleon Martin for leave to appeal from an order of Judge J. Harold Grady, presiding in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, denying relief prayed in a petition under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act is denied for the reasons set forth by Judge Grady in the memorandum accompanying the order.
We note, however, that the test of the inadequacy of counsel is no longer whether the representation was so deficient as to make a farce out of the trial. The rule followed by this Court is that counsel is incompetent when under all the circumstances of the particular case the accused has not been afforded a genuine and effective representation. Green v. Warden, 3 Md. App. 266. Judge Grady found that the petitioner was afforded “adequate and effective representation” and on the record before us, applying the more comprehensive rule, we agree.
Application denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
244 A.2d 475, 4 Md. App. 634, 1968 Md. App. LEXIS 513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-warden-mdctspecapp-1968.