Monger v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Monger v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

160 A.2d 786, 222 Md. 634, 1960 Md. LEXIS 408

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

DecidedMay 20, 1960

DocketP. C. No. 105

StatusPublished

This text of 160 A.2d 786 (Monger 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

Monger v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary, 160 A.2d 786, 222 Md. 634, 1960 Md. LEXIS 408 (Md. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Monger and one Singleton A. Burke were tried together on [635]*635similar indictments and convicted of violations of the narcotics law arising out of the same incident. Both Burke and Monger filed petitions for relief under the Post Conviction Procedure Act, which are identical except for the names, and which were heard together and denied by Judge John T. Tucker in the Criminal Court of Baltimore. The reasons given by the court below were adopted by this Court in rejecting Burke’s companion application for leave to appeal, 222 Md. 623, and as the identical reasons given by Judge Tucker in his denial of relief to Monger are applicable here, the petitioner’s application for leave to appeal is denied for those reasons.

Application denied.

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

Per Curiam.

Monger and one Singleton A. Burke were tried together on [635]*635similar indictments and convicted of violations of the narcotics law arising out of the same incident. Both Burke and Monger filed petitions for relief under the Post Conviction Procedure Act, which are identical except for the names, and which were heard together and denied by Judge John T. Tucker in the Criminal Court of Baltimore. The reasons given by the court below were adopted by this Court in rejecting Burke’s companion application for leave to appeal, 222 Md. 623, and as the identical reasons given by Judge Tucker in his denial of relief to Monger are applicable here, the petitioner’s application for leave to appeal is denied for those reasons.

Application denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 A.2d 786, 222 Md. 634, 1960 Md. LEXIS 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monger-v-warden-of-maryland-penitentiary-md-1960.