Opinion
[H.C. No. 116, September Term, 1957.]
Decided June 19, 1958.
HABEAS CORPUS — Alleged Irregularities Before Trial — Confinement Without Charges — Preliminary Hearing — Bail. Alleged irregularities before trial (such as confinement in jail without charges and failure to afford a preliminary hearing and to allow bail) do not constitute grounds for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. p. 661
HABEAS CORPUS — Trial by Information upon Petition and Suggestion of Accused or His Counsel. Trial upon information is authorized under Code (1957), Art. 27, § 592, (1951), Art. 27, sec. 679, upon petition and suggestion signed by the accused or his counsel. In the instant habeas corpus proceeding, where petitioner complained that he was not indicted, the Court found no showing of a departure from the terms of the statute and no basis for issuing the writ on this contention. p. 661
HABEAS CORPUS — Counsel — Alleged Incompetence of. The alleged incompetence of counsel is no ground for issuing a writ of habeas corpus. In this case, where petitioner complained that alleged irregularities before trial showed that his counsel was incompetent and must have acted in collusion with State officials to deprive him of his rights, the Court found no basis for the charge, pointing out that, according to the petitioner himself, he gave the police a voluntary statement that he had shot and killed a man, and he pleaded guilty to manslaughter. p. 662
J.E.B.
Decided June 19, 1958.
Habeas corpus proceeding by Samuel L. Culley 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.
Reporter's Note: Certiorari denied, Supreme Court of United States, October 13, 1958.
Before BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
The petitioner asserts as grounds for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus that before trial he was confined in jail without charges, was not given a preliminary hearing and was not allowed bail, that he was improperly tried on an information and not on an indictment, and that he was not properly represented by counsel.
Irregularities before trial such as those alleged have repeatedly been held not to constitute grounds for the issuance of the writ.
Trial upon information is authorized under Code (1957), Art. 27, § 592 (Sec. 679 of the 1951 Ed.) upon petition and suggestion signed by the accused or his counsel. We find no showing of a departure from the terms of the statute or basis for the issuance of a writ on this contention. Fisher v. Swenson, 192 Md. 717, 64 A.2d 124; State ex rel. Ambrose v. Warden, 192 Md. 725, 64 A.2d 557; State ex rel. Butler v. Warden, 195 Md. 713, 72 A.2d 741.
The complaints against counsel are based upon the claim that because of the irregularities which the petitioner asserts, counsel was incompetent and must have acted in collusion with State officials to deprive him of his rights. We find no warrant for the latter conclusion. The petitioner, according to his own statement, had given the police a voluntary statement that he had shot and killed a man, and he pleaded guilty to manslaughter. Alleged incompetence of counsel has been held repeatedly not to be a ground for issuance of the writ. We may add that we find here no basis for the charge.
Application denied, with costs.