Archer v. Director, Patuxent Institution

Anderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The petitioner, together with two co-defendants, Billy Eugene Sellars and Gary Jeffrey Grant, was convicted on December 11, 1963, in the Circuit Court for Howard County of breaking and entering and grand larceny and sentenced to serve six years in the Maryland House of Correction. A motion for a new trial was filed in his behalf by his attorney and was denied. He took no direct appeal to the Court of Appeals, of Maryland.

However, a co-defendant, Billy Eugene Sellars, filed an appeal in the Court of Appeals and his conviction was reversed. Sellars v. State, 237 Md. 58 . The other co-defendant, Grant, took no direct appeal. Post conviction relief denied.

Grant v. Warden, 240 Md. 739 . On August 16, 1965, the petitioner through court-appointed counsel filed a petition for relief under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act, in which he makes the following contentions: (1) that his arrest was unlawful; (2) that the search and seizure pursuant to his arrest was unlawful; (3) that the items seized after his arrest were introduced into evidence against him unlawfully; (4) that he was not advised of his rights to appeal the conviction. A hearing was held on March 24, 1966, before Judge May-field, and on May 28, 1966, Judge Mayfield filed a Memorandum Opinion denying the relief sought. The court below in his opinion considered all of the petitioner’s contentions and came to the conclusion that since the first three were matters that would have been proper subjects of appeal from his conviction and sentence, the sole question to decide was whether or not the petitioner made an intelligent waiver of his right to appeal so as to preclude him from obtaining relief in the proceedings.

After a careful consideration of all the evidence, the lower court found as a fact that, based on his own testimony the petitioner was aware of his right of appeal, the question of illegal search having been raised and preserved during his trial, and that he deliberately waived such right. He was, therefore,