Chavez v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

Hammond, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Judge Tucker of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore denied a writ of habeas corpus to Richard Chavez, serving a ten year term after conviction of burglary, and he seeks leave to appeal from that denial. Pie bases his right to relief upon three grounds: that he was denied due process of law; that he was deprived of a fair trial; and that he was illegally convicted. Apart from two contentions, to be dealt with later, he cites no facts to support these general allegations and this absence of particularization presents to the Court nothing to justify the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus.

Williams v. Warden, 205 Md. 633 ; Bell v. Warden, 207 Md. 618. The two factual allegations made by petitioner in support of his generalizations are: 1, that he was denied counsel; and 2, that he was convicted by the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. The record shows that Chavez was given a preliminary hearing before a magistrate on February 24, 1956, was arraigned in the Criminal Court for Baltimore on March 2, 1956, and tried on March 8, 1956. The transcript of the proceedings of his arraignment shows that at the time he was arraigned, he was asked by the clerk whether he had a lawyer and that his answer was, “My mother is getting one.” On the basis of this statement, no lawyer was appointed.

He alleges that on the morning of the trial, he asked