Opinion
[H.C. No. 103, September Term, 1957.]
Decided March 21, 1958.
HABEAS CORPUS — Prejudice Allegedly Caused by Trial Judge's Charge to Grand Jury. Where petitioner, who had been convicted of larceny, complained on habeas corpus that he had been prejudiced by the fact that the trial judge had charged the grand jury to investigate and to put a stop to the many cases of breaking and entering occurring in the county, this Court found no prejudice, assuming, without deciding, that the point could be raised on habeas corpus. It was noted that petitioner did not ask for a jury trial, but was tried by the court sitting without a jury, and that he was represented by counsel and took no appeal, although he obtained a reduction in sentence on motion for a new trial. p. 629
HABEAS CORPUS — Innocence — Proof Not Showing Crime. Complaints on habeas corpus by a petitioner convicted of larceny that he was innocent of the charge, and that the proof did not show larceny, were without merit. p. 629
HABEAS CORPUS — Past Record — Conviction on. A contention on habeas corpus that petitioner was convicted on his past record was without merit. p. 629
J.E.B.
Decided March 21, 1958.
Habeas corpus proceeding by John Charles Boyd against the Warden of the Maryland House of Correction. From a refusal of the writ, petitioner applied for leave to appeal.
Application denied, with costs.
Before BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
Petitioner was convicted in the Circuit Court for Charles County on the second count of a larceny indictment, and sentenced to five years, later reduced to two years, in the House of Correction. He contends that he was prejudiced by the fact that the trial judge charged the grand jury that they should investigate and put a stop to the many cases of breaking and entering occurring in Charles County. If we assume, without deciding, that the point could be raised on habeas corpus, we find no prejudice. The petitioner did not ask a jury trial, but was tried by the court without a jury. He was represented by counsel, and did not take an appeal, although he obtained a reduction in sentence on motion for new trial. Further contentions that he was innocent of the charge, that the proof did not show larceny, and that he was convicted on his past record, are also without merit. Cf. Ford v. Warden, 214 Md. 649, 652, and Roberts v. Warden, 211 Md. 639, 641.
Application denied, with costs.