Mefford v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

243 Md. 696
Court of Appeals of Maryland·Decided July 26, 1966·No. App. No. 108·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This application for leave to appeal from a denial of post conviction relief by Judge Menchine arises out of facts set forth in elaborate detail in Mefford v. State, 235 Md. 497, 201 A. 2d 824 (1964). Petitioner contends that he was denied due process in his original trial by a combination of the inexperience of assigned counsel and the prosecuting attitude of the trial judge. Judge Menchine made an express finding that petitioner’s counsel had “carried out his duties in the defense of the Petitioner with competence and vigor.” He also found that the trial judge’s participation in the trial “did not in any sense constitute judicial impropriety.” We find in the record ample support for these findings.

Application denied.

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

Mefford v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary, 243 Md. 696 (Md. 1966).

243 Md. 696 (Mefford v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Blackburn v. Copinger
300 F. Supp. 1127 (D. Maryland, 1969)
Mefford v. Warden
221 A.2d 906 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1966)