Opinion
[H.C. No. 20, October Term, 1953.]
Decided December 4, 1953.
HABEAS CORPUS — Sentence On Wrong Count. Petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus contended that he was erroneously sentenced on the first count of an indictment to which a nol pros had been entered but the Court stated that the record on the application for leave to appeal did not support the contention and held that the sentence under the second count, to which petitioner plead guilty, would be effective in any event. p. 677
HABEAS CORPUS — Commitment Defective. The fact that a commitment erroneously showed that petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus was convicted on the first count of an indictment instead of on the second count does not entitle him to release but to correction of the commitment. p. 677
HABEAS CORPUS — Arrest Illegal. An illegal arrest cannot be raised on habeas corpus. p. 677
HABEAS CORPUS — Holding In Jail Unreasonable Length of Time Before Trial. Holding in jail an unreasonable length of time before trial is not a question which can be reviewed on habeas corpus. p. 677
Decided December 4, 1953.
Habeas corpus proceeding by Ernest Edward Lewis against Warden of Maryland Penitentiary. From refusal of the writ, petitioner applied for leave to appeal.
Application denied.
Before SOBELOFF, C.J., DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and HAMMOND, JJ.
This is an application for leave to appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner was convicted in the Circuit Court for Caroline County upon an indictment containing counts of larceny and receiving stolen goods. Nol pros was entered to the first count and there was a plea of guilty to the second. Petitioner was sentenced to eight years. He contends that he was erroneously sentenced under the first count. The record does not support the contention, and in any event the sentence under the second count would be effective. Cf. Bowen v. Warden, 201 Md. 649, 92 A.2d 384. He also alleges that the commitment erroneously shows conviction on the first count. If true, this would call for correction of the commitment but not for his release. Justice v. Warden, 203 Md. 651, 97 A.2d 906.
Petitioner also contends that his arrest was illegal, that he was held in jail an unreasonable length of time before trial, and that there was "fraud, collusion and trickery" on the part of the State. On the first two points we have held repeatedly that they cannot be reviewed on habeas corpus. On the last point, the petitioner does not supply any details of the charge nor any proof. Cf. Hickman v. Warden, 203 Md. 668, Edwards v. Warden, 198 Md. 686, 85 A.2d 49; Peoples v. Warden, 198 Md. 688, 84 A.2d 695.
Application denied, with costs.