Opinion
[H.C. No. 121, September Term, 1957.]
Decided May 27, 1958.
HABEAS CORPUS — Confession — Claim That It Was Involuntary. The allegedly involuntary character of a confession is reviewable on appeal, but not on habeas corpus. p. 654
HABEAS CORPUS — Evidence — Sufficiency of. The alleged insufficiency of the evidence to sustain conviction is reviewable on appeal, but not on habeas corpus. p. 654
HABEAS CORPUS — Process for Witnesses — Failure of Prosecuting Witness to Testify. Claims on habeas corpus (not passed upon below) that petitioner was not afforded process for witnesses, and that the prosecuting witness failed to testify, affect the regularity of the proceedings, and, in the absence of a demand for compulsory process, do not concern the jurisdiction of the trial court. p. 654
HABEAS CORPUS — Constitutional Rights, Denial of — Holding Petitioner Incommunicado — Double Jeopardy — Unlawful Sentence — Mere Statements as to. Mere statements by a petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus (i) that he was held incommunicado without benefit of counsel, (ii) that he was put in double jeopardy, and (iii) that his ten-year sentence was unlawful, without more, are not sufficient allegations of fact to show a denial of constitutional rights. p. 654
J.E.B. Decided May 27, 1958.
Habeas corpus proceeding by Walter Gardner against the Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary. From a refusal of the writ, petitioner applied for leave to appeal.
Application denied, with costs.
Reporter's Note: Certiorari denied, 357 U.S. 942.
Before BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is denied with costs. Judge Byrnes properly ruled on the petition filed in the Baltimore City Court for a writ of habeas corpus that the involuntary character of a confession and the insufficiency of the evidence to convict the petitioner of "conspiracy" was reviewable on appeal but not on habeas corpus. The petitioner's claim — not passed upon by the court below — that he was not afforded process for witnesses, and the failure of the prosecuting witness to testify, affect the regularity of the proceedings and, absent a demand for compulsory process, do not concern the jurisdiction of the trial court. The mere statements by a petitioner (i) that he was held incommunicado without benefit of counsel, (ii) that he was put in double jeopardy, and (iii) that his ten-year sentence was unlawful, without more, are not sufficient allegations of fact to show a denial of constitutional rights.