Opinion
[No. 30, October Term, 1947.]
Decided November 14, 1947.
Habeas Corpus — Guilty or Innocence.
The question of guilt or innocence and sufficiency of evidence to convict can be reviewed on motion for new trial but not on habeas corpus. p. 305
Decided November 14, 1947.
Appeal from the Baltimore City Court (FRANCE, J.).
Habeas corpus proceeding by Terrie Walker against J. Leroy Wright, Warden of the Maryland House of Correction. From an order refusing the writ, Terrie Walker appeals.
Order affirmed.
The cause was argued before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON, and MARKELL, JJ.
Terrie Walker, in pro per. Hall Hammond, Attorney General, and J. Edgar Harvey, Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee.
This is an appeal, taken and perfected before June 1, 1947, the effective date of Chapter 625 of the Acts of 1947, from refusal of a writ of habeas corpus.
Petitioner is imprisoned under sentence of four years for larceny and conspiracy. He alleges that: He was convicted because his attorney "did not prove to the court" that he was not guilty; because he was in jail he was unable to get witnesses in his favor; he had six named witnesses (with Baltimore addresses) to prove that he was not guilty and was not with the man who committed the crime, but he was "not given the chance to get his witnesses". He does not allege that his witnesses were summoned or what, if any, effort was made to procure their attendance at the trial.
The questions of guilt or innocence and the sufficiency of the evidence can be reviewed on motion for new trial, but not on habeas corpus. Rountree v. Wright, 189 Md. 292, 55 A.2d 848, just decided, and cases there cited.
Order affirmed, without costs.