Smith v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Smith v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

80 A.2d 38, 197 Md. 684, 1951 Md. LEXIS 287

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

DecidedApril 11, 1951

DocketH. C. No. 25

StatusPublished

This text of 80 A.2d 38 (Smith v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary) 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

Smith v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary, 80 A.2d 38, 197 Md. 684, 1951 Md. LEXIS 287 (Md. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Markell, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an application for leave to appeal from denial of a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner is imprisoned under sentences aggregating fifty years and six months for robbery (two cases), robbery with á deadly weapon, and assault. He alleges that his constitutional rights were violated by failure of the court to appoint counsel [685]*685for him at his trial. He not only could have made, but did make, this contention on appeal to this court through counsel appointed by the court for the purpose of appeal. The judgment was affirmed. Smith v. State, 180 Md. 529, 25 A. 2d 681. If any other contentions now made, e. g., failure of the court to advise him (a) “that he could conduct his own case in his own defense” or (b) of “his right to appeal”, were not made on appeal, they could have been made then and cannot be heard on habeas corpus. Loughran v. Warden, 192 Md. 719, 64 A. 2d 712. Indeed, these contentions seem self-contradictory.

Application denied, with costs.

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

Markell, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an application for leave to appeal from denial of a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner is imprisoned under sentences aggregating fifty years and six months for robbery (two cases), robbery with á deadly weapon, and assault. He alleges that his constitutional rights were violated by failure of the court to appoint counsel [685]*685for him at his trial. He not only could have made, but did make, this contention on appeal to this court through counsel appointed by the court for the purpose of appeal. The judgment was affirmed. Smith v. State, 180 Md. 529, 25 A. 2d 681. If any other contentions now made, e. g., failure of the court to advise him (a) “that he could conduct his own case in his own defense” or (b) of “his right to appeal”, were not made on appeal, they could have been made then and cannot be heard on habeas corpus. Loughran v. Warden, 192 Md. 719, 64 A. 2d 712. Indeed, these contentions seem self-contradictory.

Application denied, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.2d 38, 197 Md. 684, 1951 Md. LEXIS 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-warden-of-maryland-penitentiary-md-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack