Parker v. Warden

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Parker v. Warden

139 A.2d 262, 215 Md. 661

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

DecidedMarch 3, 1958

DocketH. C. No. 95

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 139 A.2d 262 (Parker v. Warden) 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

Parker v. Warden, 139 A.2d 262, 215 Md. 661 (Md. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Henderson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this application for leave to appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus, it appears that the petitioner was convicted in 1947 of second-degree murder in the Circuit Court for Howard County and sentenced to eighteen years. He ■contends that the indictment was faulty and that he acted in self-defense. These matters are not open to review on habeas corpus. His chief complaint seems to be that he was paroled June 4, 1953, but returned for violating parole on June 12, 1956. The Board allowed him one-half the time spent on parole. He argues that the disallowance of the other time illegally extends his sentence.

The Board’s action was within its discretion, and not illegal. Creager v. Warden, 211 Md. 649; Clark v. Warden, 213 Md. 641; Code (1957 Supp.), Art. 41, sec. 91H.

Application denied, with costs.

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

Henderson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this application for leave to appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus, it appears that the petitioner was convicted in 1947 of second-degree murder in the Circuit Court for Howard County and sentenced to eighteen years. He ■contends that the indictment was faulty and that he acted in self-defense. These matters are not open to review on habeas corpus. His chief complaint seems to be that he was paroled June 4, 1953, but returned for violating parole on June 12, 1956. The Board allowed him one-half the time spent on parole. He argues that the disallowance of the other time illegally extends his sentence.

The Board’s action was within its discretion, and not illegal. Creager v. Warden, 211 Md. 649; Clark v. Warden, 213 Md. 641; Code (1957 Supp.), Art. 41, sec. 91H.

Application denied, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.2d 262, 215 Md. 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-warden-md-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack