Opinion
[H.C. No. 25, September Term, 1958.]
Decided October 23, 1958.
HABEAS CORPUS — Magistrates — Conviction in People's Court — Alleged Lack of Jurisdiction and of Counsel. Where petitioner was convicted in the People's Court of Wicomico County on two counts of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, there was no substance to his complaints on habeas corpus (1) that he should have been tried by the juvenile authorities, and (2) that he was not represented by counsel. His petition contained no facts tending to show a lack of jurisdiction in the magistrate, nor did it allege or show that he requested that counsel be appointed, or that for want of counsel "an ingredient of unfairness operated actively in the process that resulted in his confinement". The appointment of counsel by a magistrate is unheard of in Maryland, and on appeal petitioner would have been entitled to a trial de novo, and counsel could then have been appointed, if necessary. p. 644
CRIMINAL LAW — Counsel — Appointment in Serious Cases. Counsel need not be appointed except in serious cases. p. 644
J.E.B.
Decided October 23, 1958.
Habeas corpus proceeding by Daniel Paul Brown 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.
This is an application for leave to appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus by Judge Byrnes, in the Baltimore City Court. Petitioner was convicted in the People's Court of Wicomico County on two counts of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and sentenced to 24 months in the House of Correction. He alleges that he should have been tried by the juvenile authorities, and that he was not represented by counsel. The petition is devoid of any facts that would tend to show a lack of jurisdiction in the magistrate, nor does it allege that he requested that counsel be appointed. De Lisle v. Warden, 203 Md. 649. We have also noted in several cases that appointment of counsel by a magistrate is unheard of in Maryland, and that on appeal petitioner would have been entitled to a trial de novo and that counsel could then have been appointed for him, if necessary. Gayles v. Warden, 212 Md. 641; Smith v. Warden, 208 Md. 672; Ridgeley v. Warden, 201 Md. 651. In any event, counsel need not be appointed except in serious cases, and there is no showing that for want of counsel "an ingredient of unfairness operated actively in the process that resulted in his confinement". Channell v. Warden, 211 Md. 615, 616, and cases cited.
Application denied, with costs.