Opinion
[H.C. No. 16, October Term, 1953.]
Decided November 5, 1953.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Cruel and Unusual Punishment — Delay of 10 Days In Sentencing. Where an accused had been convicted of forgery and sentenced for 3 years, a delay of 10 days between the date of conviction and the date of sentence was not cruel and unusual punishment, as he might have been sentenced for 10 years. p. 667
CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — No Requirement That It Shall Date from Date of Verdict. There is no law in this State which requires that a sentence shall date from the day the verdict is given. p. 667
CRIMINAL LAW — Penalty — Court of Appeals Has No Right To Determine, Within Statutory Limits. The Court of Appeals generally has no right to determine the penalty within the statutory limits. p. 667
HABEAS CORPUS — Speedy Trial — Lack of. A prisoner cannot be released on habeas corpus merely because his trial was improperly delayed. p. 667
HABEAS CORPUS — Failure of Judge To State Reason for Denial of Writ. Where a judge failed to state any reason for his denial of a writ of habeas corpus, as required by Code (1951), Art. 42, sec. 5, but, after the hearing of a former petition for a writ on the same grounds before a different judge and that judge filed an opinion along the lines of the opinion of Court of Appeals, it was apparent that the judge reached the same conclusion for the same reasons and a remand for his opinion was unnecessary, the record showing that the prisoner was lawfully imprisoned. p. 667
Decided November 5, 1953.
Habeas corpus proceeding by Billy S. Agner against Warden of Maryland House of Correction. From a refusal of the writ, petitioner applied for leave to appeal.
Application denied.
Before SOBELOFF, C.J., DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and HAMMOND, JJ.
This is an application by Billy S. Agner for leave to appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus by Judge John B. Gontrum, of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County.
The petitioner was tried and convicted in the Circuit Court for Washington County for forgery and sentenced to three years in the Maryland House of Correction. Attached to the record are docket entries which show that he was indicted on May 13, 1953; tried and convicted on a guilty plea on May 21, 1953; and was sentenced on June 3, 1953. He complains first that the delay of two weeks between the day of his conviction and the passing of sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Under the provisions of Code, 1951, Article 27, § 51, the punishment for forgery is not less than one nor more than ten years. If the two weeks which petitioner spent in jail are added to the sentence of three years, the total time does not exceed the maximum for the offense. Baldwin v. Warden, 201 Md. 657, 92 A.2d 739. There is no law in this State requiring that a sentence shall date from the day the verdict is given. Baldwin v. Warden, supra. The Court of Appeals generally has no right to determine the penalty within the statutory limits. Reid v. State, 200 Md. 89, 88 A.2d 478; Baldwin v. Warden, supra.
The petitioner also alleges that he was denied a speedy trial. There is nothing here to show that petitioner demanded a speedy trial. Harris v. State, 194 Md. 288, 297. A prisoner cannot be released on habeas corpus after conviction merely because his trial was improperly delayed. Baldwin v. Warden, supra; Ruben v. Welch, 4 Cir., 159 F.2d 493.
Petitioner also complains that Judge Gontrum failed to state any reason why he denied the writ as required by Code, 1951, Art. 42, § 5. It might be necessary to remand the case so that such reason or reasons might be supplied. However, from the record it appears that petitioner had formerly filed a petition for a writ with Judge Warnken on the same grounds as those in his petition to Judge Gontrum. Judge Warnken filed an opinion more or less along the lines of the opinion of this Court. Judge Gontrum evidently reached the same conclusion. As the record before us shows that petitioner is imprisoned lawfully, the reason for the court's action is apparent and it is unnecessary to remand the case for such an opinion. Sisk v. Warden, 190 Md. 759; Kirby v. Warden, 190 Md. 765.
Application denied, with costs.