Opinion
[H.C. No. 34, October Term, 1956.]
Decided November 30, 1956.
CRIMINAL LAW — U.S. Constitution — State Not Required to Furnish Counsel as Matter of Right — State Non-Capital Trials — Burden of Proof. The Federal Constitution does not compel a State to furnish counsel as a matter of right. The lack of counsel in State non-capital trials denies Federal Constitutional protection only when the absence results in a denial to the accused of the essentials of justice. The traverser has the burden of showing that for want of counsel an ingredient of unfairness in the trial resulted in his confinement. p. 642
HABEAS CORPUS — Lack of Counsel. An accused convicted in a non-capital case was not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that when he asked that counsel be appointed, the trial court allegedly told him to hire an attorney himself if he desired one, where he did not show any unfairness in the trial or any deprivation of fundamental rights. p. 642
J.E.B.
Decided November 30, 1956.
Habeas corpus proceeding by Howard H. Fairbanks against the Warden of the Maryland House of Correction. From a refusal of the writ, petitioner applied for leave to appeal.
Application denied.
Before BRUNE, C.J., and COLLINS, HENDERSON, HAMMOND and PRESCOTT, JJ.
This is an application by Howard H. Fairbanks for leave to appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus by Judge Kathryn J. Lawlor of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.
Petitioner was tried and convicted by Judge Joseph L. Carter of the Criminal Court of Baltimore City for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and sentenced to two years in the Maryland House of Correction from March 9, 1956.
Petitioner contends that he requested the court to appoint counsel for him and was informed by the court that, if he desired counsel, he must hire one himself. The Federal Constitution does not compel a state to furnish counsel as a matter of right. The lack of counsel in state non-capital trials denies Federal Constitutional protection only when the absence results in a denial to the accused of the essentials of justice. The traverser has the burden of showing that for want of counsel an ingredient of unfairness in the trial resulted in his confinement. Truelove v. Warden, 207 Md. 636, 638, 115 A.2d 297. The petitioner here does not show and does not claim unfairness in the trial. He does not show that he was deprived of any of his fundamental rights.
Application denied, with costs.