Baldwin v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

Barnes, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Russell Harvey Baldwin (the applicant) was indicted for murder on June 17, 1960, in Prince George’s County. He was arraigned twelve days later, at which time he entered a plea of not guilty. Counsel was appointed on the day of arraignment.

On August 4, 1960, a plea of insanity was filed, following which he was committed to Spring Grove State Hospital for examination. After such examination and the filing of a report from the Department of Mental Hygiene, trial began in the Circuit Court before Judges Marbury and Powers on December 1, I960. A jury found him sane at the time the crime was committed, sane at the time of trial, and guilty of murder, whereupon he was sentenced to life imprisonment. The applicant appealed his conviction and we affirmed the trial court in Baldwin v. State, 226 Md. 409 , 174 A. 2d 57 (1961).

He has been before this Court on two other occasions where we denied his applications for leave to appeal from the refusals of trial courts to grant him post conviction relief. Baldwin v. Warden, 237 Md. 638 , 206 A. 2d 710 (1964) ; Baldwin v. Warden, 234 Md. 626 , 198 A. 2d 290 (1964). ³²⁸ On May 21, 1965 the applicant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. That Court denied him relief. On September 20, 1965 he filed his latest petition for relief under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act, which was denied on October 4, 1965.

He now seeks leave to appeal from that determination. The contentions raised in this application for leave to appeal, in exactly the language used by the applicant, are as follows : 1. Illegal arrest and search and seizure. 2. Perjury (sic) testimony by Det Pinsor and Wm Carrey. 3.

False indictment. Charged with killing someone else not my wife. 4. Statement used not legal. 5. Incompetent counsel. 6.

Lay witness not allowed to testify. 7. Delay in time before I was tried. 8. Lack of counsel at his preliminary hearing. 9. No consideration given to outside doctors. 10.

Was not given equal rights like my cell mates Gibbson Clarence Peed and Harry Guthery. The issues raised in contentions Nos. 5, 6 and 9 were fully and finally litigated at the applicant’s appeal or prior post conviction proceedings and will not be reheard at this time. Code (1965 Cum. Supp.), Art. 27, §645A(b).

Contention No. 3 is patently frivolous; and contentions No. 4 and 10 are bald and unintelligible allegations which can afford the applicant no post conviction relief. Contention No. 1 can be summarily disposed of. There is no allegation or showing that any “fruits” of an illegal arrest or search were introduced against the applicant at his trial. The alleged illegality of the arrest, search and seizure is therefore immaterial.

Hornes v. Warden, 235 Md. 673 , 202 A. 2d 643 (1964) ; Ogle v. Warden, 236 Md. 425 , 204 A. 2d 179 (1964) ; Forrester v. Warden, 233 Md. 620 , 195 A. 2d 693 (1963). The applicant’s 7th contention is likewise without merit. The applicant was indicted for murder on June 17, 1960. Twelve days later he was arraigned and counsel were appointed to rep ³²⁹ resent him.

A plea of not guilty by reason of insanity was entered on August 4, 1960. The trial commenced on December 1, 1960. The delay of some four months from the time of the applicant’s indictment to the date of trial was not at all unreasonable under the cricumstances in this case. The docket entries clearly show that the fall of 1960 was spent in examining the applicant in relation to his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and in summoning witnesses who would testify for the