Opinion
[H.C. No. 28, October Term, 1956.]
Decided October 9, 1956.
HABEAS CORPUS — Arrest — Legality of. The legality of petitioner's arrest cannot be reviewed on habeas corpus. p. 618
HABEAS CORPUS — Confession — Improper Admission of. The allegedly improper admission of a confession in evidence cannot be reviewed on habeas corpus. p. 618
HABEAS CORPUS — Counsel — Court-Appointed — Proper Protection of Petitioner's Rights. A complaint that court-appointed counsel did not properly protect petitioner's rights is no ground for a writ of habeas corpus, in the absence of any allegations of collusion or fraud with State officials, or objections raised in the trial court. p. 618
CRIMINAL LAW — Trial by Court on Information Held Proper under Circumstances. An accused was properly tried by the court on an information where he waived in writing his right to an indictment and a jury trial. p. 618
J.E.B.
Decided October 9, 1956.
Habeas corpus proceeding by Lester W. Davis against the Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary. From a refusal of the writ, petitioner applied for leave to appeal.
Application denied.
Before BRUNE, C.J., and COLLINS, HENDERSON and HAMMOND, JJ.
This is an application for leave to appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner was convicted of statutory rape and sentenced to life imprisonment by Judge Harris, in the Circuit Court for Allegany County. His complaints as to the legality of his arrest, and the improper admission of a confession in evidence, cannot be reviewed on habeas corpus, as we have repeatedly said. The complaint that court-appointed counsel did not properly protect his rights is not a ground for a writ of habeas corpus, in the absence of any allegations of collusion or fraud with State officials, or objections raised in the trial court. Cf. Bowen v. Warden, 202 Md. 646, and Thanos v. Superintendent, 204 Md. 665. The docket entries show that he waived in writing his right of an indictment and a jury trial, and was properly tried by the court on an information. Cf. Heath v. State, 198 Md. 455, 464.
Application denied, with costs.