Opinion
[H.C. No. 38, October Term, 1955.]
Decided June 13, 1956.
HABEAS CORPUS — Appointment of Counsel — Unnecessary in All Cases — Failure to Appoint No Denial of Due Process under Circumstances. It is unnecessary to appoint counsel in all cases, and in this habeas corpus proceeding, the failure of the trial court to appoint counsel for petitioner at his trial on criminal charges was held not to be a denial of due process under the circumstances. He was 37 years of age, and it was not shown that any element of unfairness entered into the case by reason of the absence of counsel. p. 656
HABEAS CORPUS — Failure to Postpone Trial — No Denial of Due Process — to Obtain Witnesses — Not Prejudicial. The failure of the trial court to grant a postponement of petitioner's trial on criminal charges was not a denial of due process under the circumstances entitling him to release on habeas corpus. He was arraigned and pleaded not guilty on January 10, 1956, having had notice the previous day of the arraignment, and he had been at liberty on bond since November 28, 1955. Nor did the refusal to postpone the trial prejudice him as to the obtention of witnesses. They could have been summoned forthwith or for the following day, even if he had neglected to request their attendance on January 10. pp. 656-657
HABEAS CORPUS — Failure to Summon Witnesses. The failure to summon witnesses goes only to the regularity of the proceeding, and cannot be challenged on habeas corpus, but only on direct appeal. p. 657
J.E.B. Decided June 13, 1956.
Habeas corpus proceeding by Stanley Dewey Tibbs against the Warden of the Maryland House of Correction. From a refusal of the writ, petitioner applied for leave to appeal.
Application denied.
Before BRUNE, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and HAMMOND, JJ.
This is an application for leave to appeal from a denial of a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner was tried on a charge of false pretenses before the Circuit Court for Montgomery County and found guilty by a jury. He was sentenced to two years in the House of Correction. He states that he was indicted on July 7, 1955. On November 28, 1955, he was given a copy of the indictment and released on bond. He "understood" that he would be furnished counsel if he was unable to procure counsel of his own selection. On January 10, 1956, he was taken before Judge Prescott, arraigned and pleaded not guilty, having received notice the previous day from his bondsman. The Court declined to appoint counsel or to postpone the trial in order for him to obtain witnesses. He then prayed a jury trial. He testified in his own behalf, but on January 11, 1955, the jury returned a verdict of guilty.
It is well settled that it is unnecessary to appoint counsel in all cases. Recent cases on the point are Walker v. Warden, 209 Md. 654, and Wilson v. Warden, 209 Md. 659. The petitioner was 37 years of age, and it is not shown that any element of unfairness entered into the case by reason of the absence of counsel. He had been at liberty on bond since November 28, and had notice the previous day of the arraignment. We cannot find that the failure of the Court to appoint counsel or grant a postponement under the circumstances was a denial of due process.
On the question of witnesses, it is not apparent that the failure to postpone the trial was prejudicial. They could have been summoned forthwith or for the following day, even if he had neglected to request their attendance on January 10th. In any event, the failure to summon witnesses goes only to the regularity of the proceeding, which cannot be challenged on habeas corpus but only on direct appeal. Legrand v. Warden, 205 Md. 662, 663, and cases cited.
Application denied, with costs.