Opinion
[H.C. No. 20, September Term, 1957.]
Decided March 6, 1958.
HABEAS CORPUS — Larceny Case — Request That Handwriting Experts Examine Bill of Sale. A complaint that petitioner's request, that a bill of sale be examined by handwriting experts, was denied at the time of his trial on larceny charges, goes to the regularity of the proceedings, and cannot be weighed on habeas corpus. p. 606
HABEAS CORPUS — Appeal — Claim That Lawyer Told Petitioner That It Would Cost More Money Than Petitioner Had. A claim that after his conviction of a criminal offense petitioner asked his lawyer to file an appeal, only to be told that an appeal would necessitate more money than petitioner had, is insufficient on habeas corpus, where there is no allegation of a complaint to the trial court of petitioner's inability to appeal, or of his dissatisfaction with the services of his counsel, or that he sought to appeal as an indigent person. p. 606
HABEAS CORPUS — Evidence — Sufficiency of. A claim that petitioner did not commit the offense of which he was convicted goes to the sufficiency of the evidence and cannot be raised on habeas corpus. p. 606
APPEAL — Habeas Corpus Proceeding — Ground Not Raised Below Not Considered on Application for Leave to Appeal from Denial of Writ. On an application for leave to appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus, a contention based on two letters appended to the appellate record was not properly before this Court, since the ground raised in the letters was not raised below, and the letters themselves were not presented below. Maryland Rule 885. p. 606
J.E.B. Decided March 6, 1958.
Habeas corpus proceeding by Callie Nassif against the Warden of the Maryland House of Correction. From a refusal of the writ, petitioner applied for leave to appeal.
Application denied, with costs.
Before BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
Applicant for leave to appeal from a denial of a writ of habeas corpus by Judge Digges of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County was convicted of larceny on October 15, 1956, and sentenced to the House of Correction for three years. He complains (1) that his request at the time of trial that a bill of sale be examined by handwriting experts was denied; (2) that after conviction he asked his lawyer to file an appeal, only to be told that such an appeal would necessitate more money than the appellant had; (3) that he did not commit the offense of which he was convicted; (4) that two letters he appends to his appellate record prove that his conviction resulted from perjured testimony given at the instigation of a police officer.
Applicant's first complaint seeks to raise a question as to the regularity of the proceedings and cannot be weighed on habeas corpus. His second contention must also fall, inasmuch as there is no allegation that he complained to the trial court either of his inability to appeal or of his dissatisfaction with the services of his counsel, or that he sought to appeal as an indigent person. Obenstine v. Warden, 198 Md. 648, 649-650. Applicant's claim that he did not commit the offense goes to the sufficiency of the evidence and cannot be raised on habeas corpus. Schaal v. Warden, 198 Md. 656, 657. Since the ground raised in the letters was not raised below, and the letters themselves were not presented below, they are not properly before this Court. Maryland Rule 885.
Application denied, with costs.