Opinion
[H.C. No. 41, October Term, 1947.]
Decided June 16, 1948.
Habeas Corpus — Not Substitute for Appeal on Procedural Questions — If Applicant For, Pleads Guilty, Denial of Counsel, Calling Witnesses and Cross-Examination, Perjured Testimony, Lack of Court's Jurisdiction, Not Grounds for Release On — Lack of Counsel Unsupported by Showing of Request, Need, and Denial, Not Ground for Release on — Commitment Not Stating Whether Jury Trial Waived, Not Ground for Release On.
Habeas corpus is not a substitute for appeal on procedural questions. p. 754
If an accused in a criminal case pleads guilty, there is no merit in the following contentions made by him in an application for leave to appeal a habeas corpus proceeding: (1) denial of counsel (2) denial of right to call witnesses (3) denial of cross-examination (4) perjured testimony (5) lack of jurisdiction of trial court (6) denial of requested jury trial. p. 754
Allegation of denial of counsel as ground for release on habeas corpus, if unsupported by showing of request for counsel, need for counsel and denial of counsel, is not ground for release on habeas corpus. p. 754
Fact that commitment did not state whether accused waived a jury trial is no ground for release on habeas corpus. p. 754
Decided June 16, 1948.
Habeas corpus proceeding by the State of Maryland on the relation of Percy Jordan, against the Warden of the Maryland House of Correction, to secure the petitioner's release from custody.
Application denied.
Before MARBURY, C.J., DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON, and MARKELL, JJ.
This is an application for leave to appeal from refusal of a writ of habeas corpus.
Petitioner was tried in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County on the charge of contributing to delinquency and dependency of minors, and was found guilty and sentenced to the Maryland House of Correction. He alleges (1) that he was denied the right to be represented by counsel; (2) that he denied the right to call witnesses in his defense; (3) that he was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses against him; (4) that the only evidence produced against him was that of witnesses who had committed perjury in previous cases and were thus disqualified as witnesses before the Court; (5) that he did not come under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court, and should have been tried under a court of competent jurisdiction; (6) that he asked for a jury trial and was denied it; and (7) that the commitment is faulty, since it does not state whether he waived his right to trial by jury.
We find no merit in the first six allegations, inasmuch as he pleaded guilty to the charge in the Court below. No request for appointment of counsel or facts showing need for or denial of representation by counsel are alleged, and habeas corpus is not a substitute for appeal on procedural questions. Nor is there any merit in the allegation that he is illegally held merely because the commitment does not state whether he waived right to trial by jury.
Application denied, without costs.