Opinion
[H.C. No. 13, October Term, 1952.]
Decided November 11, 1952.
HABEAS CORPUS — Counsel — Deprivation of. Where no request for appointment of counsel and no circumstances making appointment of counsel necessary and no facts indicating a denial of any fundamental right to counsel are alleged, an application for leave to appeal from a refusal of the writ of habeas corpus will be denied. pp. 646-647
HABEAS CORPUS — Trial Closed To Public. Where no facts showing in what sense or to what extent trial "was closed to the public" are alleged, an application for leave to appeal from a refusal of the writ of habeas corpus will be denied. pp. 646-647
HABEAS CORPUS — Previous Record Inadmissible. Where no facts are alleged which made petitioner's previous "record" inadmissible or absence of facts which would make it admissible are shown, an application for leave to appeal from a refusal of the writ of habeas corpus will be denied. pp. 646-647
CRIMINAL LAW — Contributing To Delinquency of Minor — Indictment Not Necessary. The crime of contributing to the delinquency of a minor may be tried without indictment. p. 647
HABEAS CORPUS — Procedural Errors — Double Jeopardy. Procedural errors and double jeopardy cannot be raised on habeas corpus. pp. 646-647
Decided November 11, 1952.
Habeas corpus proceeding by Frank Casper Zimmerman against Warden of Maryland House of Correction. From a refusal of the writ, petitioner applied for leave to appeal.
Application denied.
Before MARKELL, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS and HENDERSON, JJ.
This is an application for leave to appeal from denial of a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner is imprisoned under sentence for two years upon conviction of contributing to the delinquency of an eight year old child. Petitioner alleges (without any explanatory facts) that "he was put in double jeopardy" and that various alleged "irregularities" occurred in his trial, e.g., that after waiving hearing (and apparently praying a jury trial) before the Juvenile Court, he was never indicted nor arraigned, was tried without appointment of counsel, that the jury trial "was closed to the public", that he was jeopardized "in that previous record was brought up to jury while trial was in session"; that he told the court he wanted to appeal "but was refused". No request for appointment of counsel or circumstances making appointment of counsel necessary are alleged; nor any facts showing in what sense or to what extent his trial "was closed to the public", or whether with his consent. Dutton v. State, 123 Md. 373, 91 A. 417. Nor are facts alleged which made petitioner's previous "record" inadmissible or absence of facts which would make it admissible. The offense in question was properly tried without indictment. Atwood v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction, 193 Md. 708, 709, 66 A.2d 204. No facts are alleged which indicate that, in respect of appointment of counsel or otherwise, any fundamental right was denied. In respect of alleged procedural errors at the trial, habeas corpus cannot be made to serve the purpose of an appeal or a new trial. This is specifically true of a claim of double jeopardy. Brown v. Sheriff, 200 Md. 663, 91 A.2d 392.
Application denied, with costs.