Mears v. Warden

155 A.2d 72, 220 Md. 682
Court of Appeals of Maryland·Decided October 21, 1959·No. P. C. No. 28·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

PER Curiam.

In his application for leave to appeal from the denial and dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief, the applicant assigned two reasons for allowing his appeal. He contends (i) that the evidence on which he was convicted of a violation of the narcotics law was obtained by means of an illegal search and seizure in violation of his constitutional rights and (ii) that—other than the alleged prohibited evi[683] dence—there was no evidence legally sufficient to sustain a conviction.

The contention concerning the legality and constitutionality of the search and seizure although available on appeal if preserved below cannot be raised under post conviction procedure. Banks v. Warden, 220 Md. 652, 151 A. 2d 897 (1959). The second contention, which is without merit in any event, was not raised below.

Application denied.

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

Mears v. Warden, 155 A.2d 72, 220 Md. 682 (Md. 1959).

155 A.2d 72 (Mears v. Warden) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mears v. Warden
155 A.2d 72 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2001)
Warrington v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary
159 A.2d 360 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1986)
Ward v. Warden
158 A.2d 770 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1980)
Ralph v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary
185 A.2d 366 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1962)
Hall v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary
168 A.2d 373 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1961)
Rayne v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary
165 A.2d 474 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1960)
Ward v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction
222 Md. 595 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1960)
Rice v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary
221 Md. 604 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1959)
Rice v. Warden
156 A.2d 632 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1959)