Shifflett v. Warden

155 A.2d 68, 220 Md. 667
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedSeptember 10, 2001
Docket[P.C. No. 10, September Term, 1959.]
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 155 A.2d 68 (Shifflett 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
Shifflett v. Warden, 155 A.2d 68, 220 Md. 667 (Md. 2001).

Opinion

220 Md. 667 (1959)
155 A.2d 68

SHIFFLETT
v.
WARDEN OF MARYLAND PENITENTIARY

[P.C. No. 10, September Term, 1959.]

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Decided October 20, 1959.

Before BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.

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

Related

Hobbs v. Warden
155 A.2d 70 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
155 A.2d 68, 220 Md. 667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shifflett-v-warden-md-2001.