Moore v. Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Moore v. Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary

196 A.2d 871, 233 Md. 641, 1964 Md. LEXIS 572

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

DecidedJanuary 29, 1964

DocketApp. No. 101

StatusPublished

This text of 196 A.2d 871 (Moore v. Warden of the 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

Moore v. Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary, 196 A.2d 871, 233 Md. 641, 1964 Md. LEXIS 572 (Md. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On December 7, 1961, Wallace J. Moore, the applicant for leave to appeal, pleaded guilty in the Criminal Court of Baltimore to a violation of the narcotics laws and was sentenced as [642]*642a third offender to ten years in the Maryland Penitentiary. He did not appeal, but later filed a petition under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act, contending that (1) his guilty plea was induced by his illegal arrest (and “overwhelming incriminating evidence against him”), and (2) that presentment of his previous record to the grand jury prejudiced him. Judge Cullen denied the applicant’s petition, and he applied for leave to appeal.

If it be assumed that the arrest was illegal, the applicant is not helped. He does not say that there was any search or seizure but that the testimony of an unreliable, untrustworthy informer brought about his conviction. On arraignment he pleaded not guilty but, after conferring with his privately retained counsel, changed his plea to guilty. There is no support in the record for the applicant’s contention that he changed his plea to guilty because he was in custody after an illegal arrest. The incriminating facts, which he himself says were overwhelming, would have loomed over him as persuasively to a plea of guilty if he had been held in custody after a legal arrest.

It appears that the applicant’s real grievance is that his guilty plea did not operate to bring about a shorter sentence. As to this, Judge Cullen stated in his memorandum that “the substance of * * * [this contention] is that he [Moore] understood from his trial counsel that a conversation had been held between counsel and the Judge in which it was proposed that if Petitioner plead guilty, he would receive the minimum sentence,” and that the testimony adduced at the post conviction hearing “was insufficient to support Petitioner’s contention.”

In Case v. State, 228 Md. 551, we reiterated that a guilty plea properly received acts as a waiver of all alleged prior irregularities. Moore’s second contention is insubstantial.

Application denied.

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

Per Curiam.

On December 7, 1961, Wallace J. Moore, the applicant for leave to appeal, pleaded guilty in the Criminal Court of Baltimore to a violation of the narcotics laws and was sentenced as [642]*642a third offender to ten years in the Maryland Penitentiary. He did not appeal, but later filed a petition under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act, contending that (1) his guilty plea was induced by his illegal arrest (and “overwhelming incriminating evidence against him”), and (2) that presentment of his previous record to the grand jury prejudiced him. Judge Cullen denied the applicant’s petition, and he applied for leave to appeal.

If it be assumed that the arrest was illegal, the applicant is not helped. He does not say that there was any search or seizure but that the testimony of an unreliable, untrustworthy informer brought about his conviction. On arraignment he pleaded not guilty but, after conferring with his privately retained counsel, changed his plea to guilty. There is no support in the record for the applicant’s contention that he changed his plea to guilty because he was in custody after an illegal arrest. The incriminating facts, which he himself says were overwhelming, would have loomed over him as persuasively to a plea of guilty if he had been held in custody after a legal arrest.

It appears that the applicant’s real grievance is that his guilty plea did not operate to bring about a shorter sentence. As to this, Judge Cullen stated in his memorandum that “the substance of * * * [this contention] is that he [Moore] understood from his trial counsel that a conversation had been held between counsel and the Judge in which it was proposed that if Petitioner plead guilty, he would receive the minimum sentence,” and that the testimony adduced at the post conviction hearing “was insufficient to support Petitioner’s contention.”

In Case v. State, 228 Md. 551, we reiterated that a guilty plea properly received acts as a waiver of all alleged prior irregularities. Moore’s second contention is insubstantial.

Application denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 A.2d 871, 233 Md. 641, 1964 Md. LEXIS 572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-warden-of-the-maryland-penitentiary-md-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack