From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Adkins v. Warden

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Oct 5, 1950
75 A.2d 772 (Md. 1950)

Opinion

[H.C. No. 6, October Term, 1950.]

Decided October 5, 1950.

Habeas Corpus — Counsel — Failure of, To Consult Accused, Not Ground for Release If No Complaint To Court At Trial — Affidavit of Brother and Co-defendant, Who Also Pleaded Guilty, Taking All Blame and Stating Defendant, Not Guilty Cannot Be Considered On.

Where accused had counsel appointed by the court but claimed as a ground for release on habeas corpus that counsel never consulted him and pleaded guilty for him, if he did not complain of this to the court at his trial, he is not entitled to release on habeas corpus. p. 653

An affidavit of a brother and co-defendant, who also pleaded guilty, stating that he takes all the blame for what happened and that defendant is not guilty, cannot be considered on habeas corpus. p. 653 Decided October 5, 1950.

Habeas corpus proceeding by State of Maryland, on the relation of Ray Adkins, against Warden of the Maryland House of Correction. From a refusal of the writ, petitioner applied for leave to appeal.

Application denied.

Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and MARKELL, JJ.


This is an application for leave to appeal from a denial of a writ of habeas corpus by the Baltimore City Court. Petitioner was sentenced to four years in the Maryland House of Correction after conviction of burglary and six cases of forgery in the Criminal Court of Baltimore. He had counsel appointed by the Court, but claims that counsel never consulted him, and entered a plea of guilty for him. There is nothing to show that he ever complained of this to the Court at the time of his trial. His main contention is that he has an affidavit from his brother who was his co-defendant in the case, and who also plead guilty. The brother's affidavit says that he takes all the blame for what happened and says that this applicant is not guilty. This is not a matter which can be considered on habeas corpus. It may be noted that the applicant previously had attempted in vain to obtain writs of habeas corpus from Judges Moser and Mason of the Supreme Bench, Chesnut of the United States Court, Woodward of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, and Chief Judge Smith of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City. The action from which he now asks leave to appeal was an order by Judge France of the Supreme Bench.

Application denied without costs.


Summaries of

Adkins v. Warden

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Oct 5, 1950
75 A.2d 772 (Md. 1950)
Case details for

Adkins v. Warden

Case Details

Full title:ADKINS v . WARDEN OF MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION

Court:Court of Appeals of Maryland

Date published: Oct 5, 1950

Citations

75 A.2d 772 (Md. 1950)
75 A.2d 772

Citing Cases

Tyler v. Warden

Therefore, clearly, it is not reviewable on habeas corpus. Cumberland v. Warden, 205 Md. 646; Adkins v.…

Cumberland v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary

Gillum v. Warden, 200 Md. 656, 90 A.2d 173; Thanos v. Superintendent, 204 Md. 665, 104 A.2d 926. Nor is there…