Shifflett v. Warden

155 A.2d 68, 220 Md. 667
Court of Appeals of Maryland·Decided October 20, 1959·No. P. C. No. 10·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

PER Curiam.

For the reasons stated by Judge Oppenheimer in his opinion in the Criminal Court of Baltimore for denying Shifflett’s application under the Post Conviction Procedure Act, his application for leave to appeal from the order denying relief is denied as to the contentions there presented. His contention that his hearing on his application was invalid because he was not present is untenable. His presence was not necessary. Code (1959 Supp.), Art. 27, Section 645G; Plump v. Warden, 220 Md. 662, 153 A. 2d 269, 270. Other contentions not presented in the trial court are not properly before this Court and will not be considered by this Court. Young v. Warden, 218 Md. 636, 145 A. 2d 238.

Application denied.

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

Shifflett v. Warden, 155 A.2d 68, 220 Md. 667 (Md. 1959).

155 A.2d 68 (Shifflett v. Warden) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Shifflett v. Warden
155 A.2d 68 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2001)
Whitley v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction
158 A.2d 905 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1978)
Wilson v. Warden
170 A.2d 771 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1961)
Deal v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction
158 A.2d 104 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1960)
Truesdale v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary
157 A.2d 281 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1960)
Burgess v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction
221 Md. 609 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1959)
Burgess v. Warden
156 A.2d 794 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1959)