From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Titus v. Warden

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Dec 12, 1963
195 A.2d 682 (Md. 1963)

Opinion

[App. No. 77, September Term, 1963.]

Decided December 12, 1963.

POST CONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT — Illegal Search And Seizure — Failure To Object At Trial Barred Review. p. 619

H.C.

Decided December 12, 1963.

William E. Titus instituted a proceeding under the Post Conviction Procedure Act, and from a denial of relief, he applied for leave to appeal.

Application denied.

Before the full Court.


Application for leave to appeal from a denial of post conviction relief is denied for the reasons set out in the opinion of Judge Foster in the court below. On the point of illegal search, Judge Foster held that the point was not open on post conviction because the record showed that no objection was made at the trial on July 2, 1962, after the decision of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643. We agree. See Porter v. State, 230 Md. 535, and Shorey v. State, 227 Md. 385. Cf. Edwards v. Warden, 232 Md. 667. The cases recognize that even on direct appeal a procedural requirement of objection may be enforced in a State court without violation of constitutional rights, so that failure to object to the introduction of evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search would bar review.


Summaries of

Titus v. Warden

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Dec 12, 1963
195 A.2d 682 (Md. 1963)
Case details for

Titus v. Warden

Case Details

Full title:TITUS v . WARDEN OF THE MARYLAND PENITENTIARY

Court:Court of Appeals of Maryland

Date published: Dec 12, 1963

Citations

195 A.2d 682 (Md. 1963)
195 A.2d 682

Citing Cases

Raven v. Warden

As to contentions 2, 3 and 4, the application will be denied for the reasons stated in the opinion of Judge…

Raven v. State

Davis v. Warden, 232 Md. 670; Mulcahy v. State, 221 Md. 413. Moreover, there was no objection. See Titus v.…