Curnyn v. Warden

Per Curiam. On March 27, 1956, applicant for leave to appeal submitted under pleas of guilty under two separate indictments for robbery with a deadly weapon and one indictment for robbery. He was sentenced by Judge Joseph L. Carter, sitting in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, to ten years for each offense in the Maryland Penitentiary; the sentences to run consecutively. The ■conviction was not appealed.

On November 12, 1958, the applicant filed a petition under the Post Conviction Procedure Act. The petition was denied March 24, 1959, by Judge Joseph R. Byrnes, presiding in the Criminal Court of Baltimore. Application for leave to appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals. Curnyn v. Warden, 220 Md. 672 .

This application for leave to appeal is from an order of October 18, 1966, of Judge Anselm Sodaro, sitting in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, denying relief requested by applicant’s .second petition under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act without a hearing or appointment of counsel. In this second petition, applicant presents four allegations of error, which in substance are as follows: 1. He was not afforded benefit of counsel during the period of his interrogation immediately following his arrest. 2. He was not allowed to contact his family during the same period. ⁴⁵³ 3.

He was not afforded benefit of counsel at a preliminary hearing. 4. He was not afforded benefit of counsel at his arraignment, at which he pleaded not guilty. A guilty plea, freely and intelligently made, operates as a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defects. Brooks v. Warden, 1 Md. App. 1 ; Washington v. Warden, 1 Md. App. 56 ; Treadway v. Warden, 243 Md. 680 .

This includes procedural defects, constitutional or otherwise. Campbell v. Warden, 240 Md. 729 ; Washington v. Warden, supra. Applicant has raised no question as to the voluntariness of his guilty plea. All four alleged errors occurred before trial, and none involved any jurisdictional defects.

Therefore, applicant can be said to have waived all these allegations of error by his guilty pleas. We find that Judge Sodaro properly dismissed the petition without the appointment of counsel and without conducting a hearing. In Bagley v. Warden, 1 Md. App. 154 and Tiller v. Warden, 1 Md. App. 286 , we held that it was an implicit requirement of Maryland Code (1967 Replacement Volume) Art. 27, § 645A, that a petitioner filing a second petition for relief under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act set forth with particularity the “special circumstances,” as required by § 645A c, excusing the failure to raise previously