Myers v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Myers v. State

145 A.2d 228, 218 Md. 49

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

DecidedSeptember 12, 2001

Docket[No. 12, September Term, 1958.]

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 145 A.2d 228 (Myers v. State) 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

Myers v. State, 145 A.2d 228, 218 Md. 49 (Md. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER Curiam.

This is an appeal by Richard Floyd Myers from an order by Chief Judge Niles of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis.

The petitioner contends there is a discrepancy between the allegations of the indictment against him and the arrest report, and further contends that the evidence presented to the trial court was inconsistent with the allegations in the indictment. The indictment was, of course, before the judge at the time of the petitioner’s trial, and a review of the averments of the petition does not show reliance on any material fact not known to the court at the time of trial. In order to issue the writ of error coram nobis, the alleged error must inhere in facts not actually in issue at the trial and unknown to the court when the judge entered his judgment, but which, if known, would have prevented the judgment. Keane v. State, 164 Md. 685. Thus Myers has not alleged a ground upon which the writ should issue.

In his reply brief the petitioner does contend that the entire case against him was fraudulent; however, these allegations are unsupported. It is not the purpose of the writ of error coram nobis to review evidence presented at the trial, *51 nor is it its purpose to consider issues that may properly have been raised by appeal. Bernard v. State, 193 Md. 1.

Myers’ final contention is that the trial judge did not abide by Art. IV, Sec. 23 of the Maryland Constitution, because he did not render his decision on the petition “within two months” after it was submitted. It has been held that Sec. 23 is not mandatory, but directory, and thus there was no loss o£ jurisdiction to pass upon the petition. Suttleman v. Board of Liquor License Commissioners, 209 Md. 134, 140; Snyder v. Cearfoss, 186 Md. 360.

For the reasons stated, we accordingly affirm the order of Judge Niles dismissing the petition.

Order affirmed.

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

PER Curiam.

This is an appeal by Richard Floyd Myers from an order by Chief Judge Niles of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis.

The petitioner contends there is a discrepancy between the allegations of the indictment against him and the arrest report, and further contends that the evidence presented to the trial court was inconsistent with the allegations in the indictment. The indictment was, of course, before the judge at the time of the petitioner’s trial, and a review of the averments of the petition does not show reliance on any material fact not known to the court at the time of trial. In order to issue the writ of error coram nobis, the alleged error must inhere in facts not actually in issue at the trial and unknown to the court when the judge entered his judgment, but which, if known, would have prevented the judgment. Keane v. State, 164 Md. 685. Thus Myers has not alleged a ground upon which the writ should issue.

In his reply brief the petitioner does contend that the entire case against him was fraudulent; however, these allegations are unsupported. It is not the purpose of the writ of error coram nobis to review evidence presented at the trial, *51 nor is it its purpose to consider issues that may properly have been raised by appeal. Bernard v. State, 193 Md. 1.

Myers’ final contention is that the trial judge did not abide by Art. IV, Sec. 23 of the Maryland Constitution, because he did not render his decision on the petition “within two months” after it was submitted. It has been held that Sec. 23 is not mandatory, but directory, and thus there was no loss o£ jurisdiction to pass upon the petition. Suttleman v. Board of Liquor License Commissioners, 209 Md. 134, 140; Snyder v. Cearfoss, 186 Md. 360.

For the reasons stated, we accordingly affirm the order of Judge Niles dismissing the petition.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 A.2d 228, 218 Md. 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myers-v-state-md-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack