From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Appitito v. Warden

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Apr 11, 1951
80 A.2d 37 (Md. 1951)

Opinion

[H.C. No. 27, October Term, 1950.]

Decided April 11, 1951.

HABEAS CORPUS — Information Defective — No Conviction of Felony On Information or of Misdemeanor Except On Guilty Plea — Duplication of Counts. That an information was defective, that there can be no conviction of a felony on an information or of a misdemeanor except on a plea of guilty and that a 3rd count was a duplication of the first two counts cannot be heard on habeas corpus. p. 688

Decided April 11, 1951.

Habeas corpus proceeding by Ernest Appitito and John R. Juratovac against Warden of Maryland Penitentiary. From a refusal of the writ, petitioners applied for leave to appeal.

Application denied.

Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON and MARKELL, JJ.


This is an application for leave to appeal from denial of a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioners are imprisoned under sentence of ten years for breaking and entering (Code, Art. 27, sec. 34), feloniously stealing (sec. 387), and breaking and entering and stealing (sec. 35). They were convicted on all three counts of an information making these three charges. The sentence of ten years was warranted under any one count. They were represented by counsel at their trial and on appeal. Their appeal was dismissed because (before the Criminal Rules of Procedure became effective) it presented no appealable question of law, but sought only a review of the legal sufficiency of the evidence. Juratovac v. State, 193 Md. 561, 69 A.2d 247. They now allege that the information was defective because vague and uncertain, that they could not lawfully be convicted of a felony on an information, or of a misdemeanor except on a plea of guilty (but see Acts of 1945, ch. 788; 1947 Supp., Art. 27, § 637), that the third count (under sec. 35) was a duplication of the first two (under sections 34 and 387) and subjected them to double jeopardy and double punishment, and that various other procedural errors occurred, none of which indicate denial of any fundamental rights. All the contentions now made could have been made on appeal and cannot be heard on habeas corpus.

Application denied, with costs.


Summaries of

Appitito v. Warden

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Apr 11, 1951
80 A.2d 37 (Md. 1951)
Case details for

Appitito v. Warden

Case Details

Full title:APPITITO ET AL. v . WARDEN OF MARYLAND PENITENTIARY

Court:Court of Appeals of Maryland

Date published: Apr 11, 1951

Citations

80 A.2d 37 (Md. 1951)
80 A.2d 37

Citing Cases

Wain v. Warden

This question could have been raised at the trial, but is not available on habeas corpus. Appitito v. Warden,…

Leek v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction

But the short answer to the contention is that it cannot be considered on habeas corpus. Appitito v. Warden,…