Maryland case law › Brigmon v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

Brigmon v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

213 Md. 628 (1971) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: DeniedPrescott✓ Good law
HoldingIsaiah Brigmon applied to the Court of Appeals for leave to appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus by Judge Smith of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County on November 19, 1956.

Prescott, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Isaiah Brigmon makes application to this Court for leave to appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus by Judge Smith of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County on November 19, 1956. The petitioner was tried in Prince George’s County before Judge Gray and a jury on a charge of carnal knowledge. He was convicted and sentenced to twenty years in the Maryland Penitentiary, dating from May 24, 1954.

The petitioner contends: (1) That perjury was committed at his trial; (2) that counsel was appointed, but that counsel did nothing for him; (3) that the indictment did not state the place or town where the offense occurred; (4) that the witnesses remained in the court room during the trial; (5) that the “jury was hung and the court would not dismiss the jury and order a mistrial, but ordered this jury to reach a verdict,” and (6) that he is falsely and illegally imprisoned. (1) That perjury was committed at the trial. This Court has previously held that, in the absence of facts that establish the knowing participation of the State’s officers in the use of perjured testimony, the mere allegation that perjury was committed at the trial does not justify the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus. Whitley v. Warden, 209 Md. 629 , 120 A. 2d 200 .

The petitioner alleges the State’s officers told 631 the prosecuting witness the names of several places in Prince George’s County and “put words in her mouth”. This is not a sufficient allegation of facts to state the knowing participation of the State’s officers in the use of perjured testimony so as to justify the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. (2) Ineptness of counsel. The alleged ineptness, lack of diligence or incompetency of counsel is not ground for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, in the

This is a preview of Brigmon v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.