Opinion
[H.C. No. 108, September Term, 1957.]
Decided April 25, 1958.
HABEAS CORPUS — Evidence — Sufficiency of. The sufficiency of the evidence cannot be tried on habeas corpus. p. 649
HABEAS CORPUS — Counsel — Alleged Ineptness of. The alleged ineptness of counsel cannot be considered on habeas corpus, at least in the absence of a showing that petitioner complained to the trial judge. p. 649
HABEAS CORPUS — Perjured Testimony — Alleged Use of. A claim that perjured testimony was used against petitioner is unavailing on habeas corpus, in the absence of definite allegations that the State knew the testimony was perjured, and the statement of facts showing the active participation of State officers in its use. p. 649
HABEAS CORPUS — Initial Detention — Extent or Legality of. The extent or legality of an initial detention cannot be raised on habeas corpus after conviction. p. 649
HABEAS CORPUS — Appeal — Alleged Inability to Note. There was no merit to a complaint by petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus that he was not able to note an appeal from his conviction of a criminal offense at the conclusion of the trial, where there were no allegations of fact that he filed, or attempted to file, an appeal, or that State officials prevented its perfection. The fact that his attorney did not see fit to enter an appeal was not controlling. p. 649
J.E.B. Decided April 25, 1958.
Habeas corpus proceeding by John Marshall Nelson against the Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary. From a refusal of the writ, petitioner applied for leave to appeal.
Application denied, with costs.
Reporter's Note: Certiorari denied, 357 U.S. 943.
Before BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
In this application for leave to appeal, from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus, petitioner states no grounds that would call for the issuance of the writ. His complaints range from a statement that he was innocent of the alleged crime (robbery with a deadly weapon) and there was no evidence to support the conviction, to complaints as to the ineptness of his appointed counsel, that perjured testimony was used against him, that he was held before trial without a copy of the indictment, and that he was not "able to note an appeal at the conclusion of the trial". As we have said repeatedly, the sufficiency of the evidence cannot be tried on habeas corpus, the ineptness of counsel cannot be considered, at least in the absence of a showing that he complained to the trial judge, a claim of perjured testimony is unavailing in the absence of definite allegations that the State knew the testimony was perjured and the statement of facts showing the active participation of state officers in its use. Brigmon v. Warden, 213 Md. 628. The extent or legality of an initial detention likewise cannot be raised on habeas corpus after conviction. There are no allegations of fact that he filed or attempted to file an appeal, or that its perfection was prevented by the action of the state officials. The fact that his attorney did not see fit to enter an appeal is not controlling.
Application denied, with costs.