Ramberg v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction

120 A.2d 201, 209 Md. 631
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedOctober 24, 2001
Docket[H.C. No. 24, October Term, 1955.]
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 120 A.2d 201 (Ramberg v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction) 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
Ramberg v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction, 120 A.2d 201, 209 Md. 631 (Md. 2001).

Opinion

Hammond, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The petitioner, who seeks leave to appeal from the denial of the writ of habeas corpus, offers nothing to show that the writ should be granted. He was convicted by jury of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and sentenced to serve two years in the House of Correction. He contends that he was not operating the car, that there was no proof of intoxication, that he was not guilty, that the State’s witnesses committed perjury and that the sentence was too severe. The contentions as to the lack or sufficiency of evidence may not be raised in support of the right to have the writ of habeas corpus. Canter v. Warden, 207 Md. 616; Smith v. Warden, 207 Md. 628; Medley v. Warden, 207 Md. 634; Cummings v. Warden, 206 Md.

*633 637; Friedel v. Warden, 205 Md. 657. The bald assertion of perjury is not enough. There must be set forth facts indicating that the state’s officers knowingly used perjured testimony or entered into a conspiracy to defraud the accused of his rights. France v. Warden, 205 Md. 636; Johns v. Warden, 205 Md. 644.

Petitioner’s claim that the sentence was too severe was supplemented in his petition in this Court by the claim that he was in jail for fifty days before he was tried and sentenced. Code, 1955 Supp., Art. 66%, Sec. 171, allows a two year sentence for a second or subsequent convictions. This was the third conviction for petitioner. Even on appeal, any sentence imposed by the court within statutory limits, is not subject to review. Frazier v. Warden, 205 Md. 654, 656. There is no requirement that a sentence run from the time of arrest. Hands v. Warden, 205 Md. 642. If the sentence of two years, starting after petitioner had been in jail for fifty days, exceeds the maximum permitted by law, as to which we express no opinion, petitioner cannot be heard until he serves so much of the sentence as was within the power of the court to impose. Roberts v. Warden, 206 Md. 246, 254; Forrester v. Warden, 207 Md. 622, 624.

Application denied, with costs.

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

Related

Smith v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary
131 A.2d 392 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1982)
State v. Ewell
198 A.2d 275 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1964)
Joseph Henry Clark v. Warden Maryland Penitentiary
293 F.2d 479 (Fourth Circuit, 1961)
Myers v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary
145 A.2d 228 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1958)
Carder v. State
142 A.2d 820 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1958)
Ramberg v. Superintendent of Spring Grove State Hospital
217 Md. 652 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1958)
Ramberg v. Superintendent
141 A.2d 752 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1958)
Plump v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary
216 Md. 650 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1958)
Plump v. Warden
141 A.2d 156 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1958)
Whitley v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction
135 A.2d 889 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1957)
Johnson v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction
134 A.2d 81 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
120 A.2d 201, 209 Md. 631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramberg-v-warden-of-maryland-house-of-correction-md-2001.