Opinion
[App. No. 25, September Term, 1961.]
Decided December 7, 1961.
POST CONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT — Applicant's Contention That Because Of Conversations With The Sheriff Of Kent County He Had Been Led To Believe That He Would Be Unable To Take An Appeal, Was Not Properly Presented To The Trial Judge And Was Not Entitled To Consideration On His Application For Leave To Appeal. pp. 656-657
H.C.
Decided December 7, 1961.
Winfield Scott O'Neal, Jr., instituted a proceeding under the Post Conviction Procedure Act, and from a denial of relief, he applied for leave to appeal.
Application denied.
Before BRUNE, C.J., HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.
For the reasons stated by Judge Keating for dismissing the petition, the application for leave to appeal will be denied.
Applicant made an additional contention at the hearing below which was not set forth in his original petition, or in the supplemental petition prepared by his court appointed counsel, which was that because of certain conversations with the sheriff of Kent County subsequent to his conviction and prior to the expiration of thirty days thereafter, he had been led to believe that he was unable to take an appeal because it would cost $500 to do so.
A careful reading of Judge Keating's opinion makes it clear that he did not believe the applicant's assertion as to his conversation with the sheriff. Moreover, under Code (1961 Supp.), Article 27, § 645C, the applicant was required to include in his verified petition to be filed with the clerk of the circuit court, facts within his personal knowledge which must be sworn to affirmatively as true and correct, which he did not do with respect to his alleged conversation with the sheriff, so that this claim on his part was not properly presented to the judge below, nor is it entitled to consideration on his application for leave to appeal.
Application denied.