Mefford v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary
This text of 243 Md. 696 (Mefford 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.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
243 Md. 696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mefford-v-warden-of-maryland-penitentiary-md-1966.