From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cheeks v. Warden

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jul 30, 1957
133 A.2d 925 (Md. 1957)

Opinion

[H.C. No. 13, September Term, 1957 (Adv.).]

Decided July 30, 1957.

HABEAS CORPUS — Constitutional Rights — Deprivation of. Where, as in this proceeding, a petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus does not set forth any facts showing how he has been deprived of constitutional rights, the mere allegation that he has been so deprived will not suffice as a basis for the granting of the writ. p. 611

HABEAS CORPUS — Evidence — Competency, Admissibility or Sufficiency of. Attacks on the competency, admissibility or sufficiency of the evidence cannot serve as the basis for the granting of a writ of habeas corpus. p. 611

HABEAS CORPUS — Pauper Lacking Funds for New Trial or Appeal. A complaint that petitioner was a pauper lacking funds with which to seek a new trial or an appeal from his conviction on criminal charges is insufficient on habeas corpus, which cannot be made to serve as a substitute for a motion for a new trial or a direct appeal. p. 611

J.E.B.

Decided July 30, 1957.

Habeas corpus proceeding by William Cheeks 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 HAMMOND and PRESCOTT, JJ.


William Cheeks was tried and convicted of the crimes of robbery and larceny and sentenced by Judge Niles to a term of eight years in the Maryland House of Correction, beginning December 27, 1956. Upon being denied a writ of habeas corpus by Judge Allen, he now makes application to appeal from that denial.

He sets forth three contentions in support of his application: (1) that his conviction and confinement are in violation of his constitutional rights; (2) that he was convicted solely on the testimony of a co-defendant, who was not a credible witness; and (3) that he is a pauper who lacks funds with which to seek a new trial or an appeal.

(1). Where, as in this case, a petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus does not set forth any facts showing how he has been deprived of constitutional rights, the mere allegation that he has been so deprived will not suffice as a basis for the granting of the writ. Lucas v. Warden, 209 Md. 645, 120 A.2d 913.

(2). It is well settled that attacks on the competency, admissibility or sufficiency of the evidence cannot serve as the basis for the granting of the writ. Snyder v. Warden, 214 Md. 606, 133 A.2d 924; Thompson v. Warden, 209 Md. 628, 120 A.2d 200.

(3). The petitioner's allegations under (3) cannot make an application for a writ of habeas corpus serve as a substitute for a motion for a new trial or a direct appeal. Walker v. Wright, 189 Md. 290, 55 A.2d 848.

Application denied, with costs.


Summaries of

Cheeks v. Warden

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jul 30, 1957
133 A.2d 925 (Md. 1957)
Case details for

Cheeks v. Warden

Case Details

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

Court:Court of Appeals of Maryland

Date published: Jul 30, 1957

Citations

133 A.2d 925 (Md. 1957)
133 A.2d 925

Citing Cases

Bell v. Warden

The first, second and eighth of these grounds — denial of a fair and impartial trial, denial of due process,…