Summary
In 194 Md. at 723, it is stated that, according to prison records, Hobbs then had had 28 applications for writs of habeas corpus or writs of error coram nobis.
Summary of this case from Hobbs v. WardenOpinion
[H.C. No. 23, October Term, 1949.]
Decided January 11, 1950.
Habeas Corpus — Lack Of Arraignment — Not Ground For Release, If Indictment Read To Petitioner and He Plead Guilty — Confrontation By Witnesses In Criminal Case — If Defendant Pleads Guilty, Not Necessary — Lack of Time To Get Witnesses — Must Indicate What Witnesses Wanted and State Whether Request Was Made To Get Them.
Lack of arraignment is not ground for release on habeas corpus, if indictment read to petitioner and he, when asked how he plead, plead guilty to 3 charges. p. 723
It is not necessary for an accused in a criminal case who pleads guilty to be confronted by witnesses. p. 723
Where petitioner for writ of habeas corpus alleges as ground for release that he was not given time to get witnesses but does not indicate what witnesses he wished to present or say whether he made any request to get them, he cannot be released. p. 723
Decided January 11, 1950.
Habeas corpus proceeding by the State of Maryland, on the relation of Joseph Hobbs, against the Warden of Maryland Penitentiary. From a refusal of the writ, petitioner applied for leave to appeal.
Application denied.
Before MARBURY, C.J., DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON and MARKELL, JJ.
The petitioner in this case had a hearing before Chief Judge Smith of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore on his petition for habeas corpus, and the testimony appears in the record. He was remanded after the hearing and from that action asks leave to appeal.
He is serving a sentence in the Maryland Penitentiary for twenty years for robbery with a deadly weapon. He was received there on January 7, 1947. According to the records in the Institution he has had twenty-eight applications for writs of habeas corpus or writs of error coram nobis, including five to the United States District Court of Maryland, three to the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as a number of others to the State Judges. He contended that he did not have an arraignment, but in the testimony admitted that the indictment was read to him and he was asked how he plead. He plead guilty to three charges. He states that his constitutional rights are violated, but does not indicate in what respect, except that he says he was not confronted with the witnesses against him and was not given time to obtain witnesses on his behalf. As he plead guilty it was not necessary for him to be confronted by witnesses, and he does not indicate what witnesses he wished to present on his own behalf, or say whether he made any request to get them. Copeland v. Wright, 188 Md. 666, 53 A.2d 553. There is nothing in the record which would justify a hearing on habeas corpus, and, therefore, his petition is denied.
Application denied, without costs.