Opinion
[P.C. No. 55, September Term, 1959.]
Decided February 23, 1960.
POST CONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT — Transcript Of Original Trial — Refusal To Order That Petitioner Be Provided With, Held No Abuse Of Discretion In This Case. The court below did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order the State to provide the petitioner in this post conviction case with a transcript of his original trial, in order to sustain one of the petitioner's allegations, where the judge below had the relevant testimony read to him, and included a portion of it in his opinion, but this testimony did not sustain the petitioner's allegation. p. 588
POST CONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT — Amending Petition — Claim Of Denial Of Right To, Without Merit. An allegation that the petitioner was denied in the court below a right to amend his petition for post conviction relief was unsupported and appeared to be contrary to the fact. The record disclosed no request or effort to amend. p. 588
J.E.B.
Decided February 23, 1960.
William H. Johnson instituted a proceeding under the Post Conviction Procedure Act, and from a denial of relief, he applied for leave to appeal.
Application denied.
Before BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
Applicant appeals from the dismissal by the Criminal Court of Baltimore of his petition for relief under the Post Conviction Procedure Act, Code (1959 Supp.), Art. 27, Secs. 645A et seq. The application is denied for the reasons set out in the opinion of Judge Joseph L. Carter of the court below.
Applicant complains that his rights were adversely affected by the refusal of the lower court to order the State to provide him with a transcript of his original trial in order to sustain one of his allegations. In Truesdale v. Warden, 221 Md. 617, we decided that the Act did not require the supplying of a petitioner with such a transcript. Judge Carter had the relevant testimony read to him and a portion of the testimony is included in his opinion. This testimony does not sustain the allegation of the applicant, and therefore the refusal of the court to order the transcript given to the applicant was not an abuse of discretion.
In this Court the applicant complains that he was denied the right to amend his petition in the trial court. That allegation is unsupported and appears contrary to the fact. The record discloses no request or effort to amend. Judge Carter denied the application on June 4, 1959. On or about June 22, the applicant wrote to Judge Carter and to the Clerk of this Court seeking leave to appeal.
Application denied.