Summary
In State ex rel. Williams v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary, 190 Md. 762, 60 A.2d 186, where the petitioner for habeas corpus alleged that the trial judge had "turned the prosecution into persecution," the Court of Appeals stated that if the verdict was unjust, the petitioner's remedy was a motion for a new trial.
Summary of this case from Lievers v. WardenOpinion
[H.C. No. 34, October Term, 1947.]
Decided May 21, 1948.
Habeas Corpus — Guilt or Innocence and Weight or Sufficiency of Evidence Not Retriable On — Illegal Arrest Not Ground For Release On, If Legally Indicted, Tried and Convicted — Deprivation of Rights to Counsel and Process Require Facts in Support — Defective Indictment and Verdict and Judgment Thereunder Require Copy of Indictment — Improper Summation by Judge Requires Facts in Support — Remedy for Unjust Verdict is New Trial.
The questions of guilt or innocence and the weight or sufficiency of the evidence cannot be retried on habeas corpus. p. 763
Even if an accused in a criminal case is illegally arrested, he is not absolved from punishment when lawfully indicted, tried and convicted and is not entitled to release on habeas corpus. p. 763
Where an application for leave to appeal in a habeas corpus case alleges deprivation of rights to counsel and process but alleges no facts in support thereof, the application on that ground will be denied. p. 763
Where application for leave to appeal in a habeas corpus case alleges defective indictment and that verdict and judgment thereunder were improper but no copy of indictment is filed, the application on that ground will be denied. p. 763
Where an application for leave to appeal in a habeas corpus case alleges that judge by "animated summation" for the State "turned the prosecution into persecution" but alleges no facts which show violation of any fundamental right, the application on that ground will be denied. p. 763
If a verdict is unjust, the remedy is a motion for a new trial and relief cannot be obtained by habeas corpus. p. 763
Decided May 21, 1948.
Habeas corpus proceeding by State, on the relation of Albert A. Williams, against Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary wherein the writ was denied. On application for leave to appeal.
Application denied.
Before MARBURY, C.J., DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON, and MARKELL, JJ.
This is an application for leave to appeal from refusal of a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner is imprisoned under sentence of ten years for burglary. He asserts that he was deprived of his rights to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, was falsely arrested without a warrant, and was deprived of property without due process by a malicious conspiracy. These assertions are not supported by any allegations of facts and, even if true, would not absolve him from punishment when lawfully indicted, tried and convicted. Davis v. Brady, 188 Md. 113, 51 A.2d 827; Bowie v. Warden, 190 Md. 728, 60 A.2d 185; State ex rel. Wilson v. Warden, 190 Md. 758, 60 A.2d 185. He also asserts that he was deprived of rights to counsel and of "compulsory process to obtain evidence held back by the State", but alleges no facts which support these assertions. He asserts that the indictment was "in no way competent" and the verdict and judgment were not proper under the indictment, but no copy of the indictment was filed with the petition. He alleges that the trial judge by "animated summation" for the State "turned the prosecution into persecution", but alleges no facts which show violation of any fundamental right. If the verdict was unjust, the remedy was a motion for a new trial. The question of guilt or innocence and the weight or sufficiency of the evidence cannot be retried on habeas corpus. Rountree v. Wright, 189 Md. 292, 55 A.2d 847, and cases cited.
Application denied, without costs.