Summary
In McClung v. Warden, 221 Md. 596, it was contended that the failure of the trial court to furnish a free transcript for use in aid of a motion for new trial or appeal from the original conviction, was a deprivation of due process that could be raised on petition for post conviction relief.
Summary of this case from Truesdale v. WardenOpinion
[P.C. No. 46, September Term, 1959.]
Decided November 24, 1959.
POST CONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT — Transcript Of Testimony At Trial — Failure Of Petitioner To Seasonably Demand. A petitioner was not entitled to any post conviction relief on the ground that the State had neglected to provide him with a transcript of the testimony at his trial for use in moving for a new trial or taking an appeal, where the petitioner, who was represented by competent counsel, had failed — through indifference, ignorance or otherwise — to seasonably demand the transcript he now claimed he needed to protect his legal and constitutional rights. He neither moved for a new trial nor entered an appeal, and he made no complaint to the trial court. pp. 596-597
J.E.B.
Decided November 24, 1959.
Dale McClung 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.
In his petition for post conviction relief, the petitioner on his own behalf, and his court-appointed counsel for him, assigned twenty-four reasons for the relief sought, many of which were frivolous and repetitious. However, on this application for leave to appeal he abandoned all of his former contentions except the principal one raised in the lower court. In effect he now contends that because the State failed to afford him the means to move for a new trial and to file a "pauper's" appeal, he was deprived of procedural due process and equal protection of the laws in that the neglect to provide him with a transcript of the testimony has prevented him from ascertaining whether he was convicted on false testimony and whether any of his constitutional rights have been infringed.
The record is clear that the applicant, who was represented at his trial by an experienced and competent lawyer, did not move for a new trial, enter an appeal, complain to the court that he was without means to secure a transcript or seek relief of any sort. In his petition for post conviction relief filed more than a year after his conviction, the applicant stated that he did not know that, within either of the respective periods of time he had to move for a new trial and (or) enter an appeal, or that he had a right to demand a transcript at the expense of the State and without cost to himself.
With respect to the issue now before us, the trial court (Niles, C.J.) properly ruled that the failure of the applicant — through indifference, ignorance or otherwise — to seasonably demand the transcript he now claims he needed to protect his legal and constitutional rights, did not entitle him to any post conviction relief. We agree. See Brown v. Warden, 221 Md. 582, 155 A.2d 648 (1959).
Application denied.