Opinion
[H.C. No. 11, October Term, 1953.]
Decided November 5, 1953.
HABEAS CORPUS — Sentence For Forgery After Allegedly Having Plead Guilty To False Pretenses. Where petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus alleged that he had pleaded guilty to false pretenses but was sentenced for forgery but it was shown that he had pleaded guilty generally to an indictment charging (1) forgery, (2) uttering a forged instrument, and (3) and (4) false pretenses, there was nothing irregular and he is not entitled to be released. p. 658
HABEAS CORPUS — Counsel — Lack of. A petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus is not entitled to release on the ground of lack of counsel where he was 32 years old, did not show any ingredient of unfairness in the proceedings, made no request for counsel, although in answer to the Clerk stated he had none, and pleaded guilty without protest. p. 658
HABEAS CORPUS — Witnesses — None To Prove Guilty, Where Guilty Plea. A petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus is not entitled to release on the ground of lack of witnesses to establish his guilt where he pleaded guilty voluntarily and because the sufficiency of the evidence cannot be raised on habeas corpus. p. 659
Decided November 5, 1953.
Habeas corpus proceeding by Charles Lockman against Warden of Maryland House of Correction. From a refusal of the writ, petitioner applied for leave to appeal.
Application denied.
Before SOBELOFF, C.J., DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and HAMMOND, JJ.
Petitioner applies for leave to appeal from a denial of the writ of habeas corpus by Judge John B. Gray, Jr., in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County.
1. Petitioner contends that he pleaded guilty to false pretenses, but that the charge was afterwards changed to one of forgery. The act of which he was accused was obtaining money by passing a forged check. Accordingly, the indictment charged in four separate counts, (1) forgery, (2) uttering a forged instrument, (3) and (4) false pretenses. The docket entries show that he was furnished and acknowledged receipt of a copy of the indictment at least four days before his arraignment. He entered a plea of guilty generally and was sentenced to two years in the House of Correction. In this procedure, we find nothing irregular.
2. A second ground asserted by the petitioner is that he did not have counsel. He is a mature man of 32, and has not attempted to meet the burden of showing that "an ingredient of unfairness" entered the proceedings. Indeed, the transcript of the arraignment fails to show that he even requested Judge Joseph L. Carter in the Criminal Court of Baltimore City for counsel, although in answer to the Clerk he did say that he had no lawyer, meaning that he, rather than counsel, would enter the plea. Without protest he pleaded guilty. Daisey v. Superintendent, 203 Md. 653, 98 A.2d 99; De Lisle v. Warden, 203 Md. 649, 98 A.2d 14; Martucci v. Warden, 202 Md. 648, 96 A.2d 490.
3. He also complains that no witnesses were present in Court to establish his guilt. This states no ground for issuing a writ of habeas corpus, first because, when a defendant voluntarily pleads guilty, witnesses would seem not indispensable; and second, because the sufficiency of the evidence is not properly an issue in this type of proceeding, but on appeal only. De Lisle v. Warden, supra; Strahl v. Warden, 202 Md. 655, 97 A.2d 134.
Application denied, with costs.