Davis v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

Brune, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The applicant was tried in the Criminal Court of Baltimore before Judge Carter, sitting without a jury, and was convicted on two separate charges of robbery. In each case the victim was a cab driver. One robbery was committed with, and the other without, a deadly weapon.

The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for consecutive terms of ten years on the lesser offense and of twenty years on the greater. He did not appeal. His petition under the Post Conviction Procedure Act alleged four grounds for relief: (1) denial of the equal protection of the laws; (2) conviction upon the uncorroborated testimony of the victims; (3) that other persons convicted of similar offenses received lesser sentences; and (4) that his prior criminal record was improperly admitted in evidence. Judge Cullen properly rejected them all.

As Judge Cullen pointed out, the substance of the applicant’s first-two contentions “is that the trial Judge believed the testimony of the prosecuting witnesses rather than the Petitioner and as a result thereof, he was denied equal protection.” Such a ⁶³⁹ contention is without merit. The matter is merely one of credibility which goes to the sufficiency of the evidence and is not a ground for post conviction relief. Fisher v. Warden, 230 Md. 612, 614 , 185 A. 2d 198 ; Slater v. Warden, 233 Md. 609 , 195 A. 2d 675 . Furthermore, since a victim is not an accomplice, his testimony does not require corroboration (Basoff v. State, 208 Md. 643, 654 , 119 A. 2d 917 ; Gregoire v. State, 211 Md. 514 , 128 A. 2d 243 ; Seidman v. State, 230 Md. 305, 318-22 , 187 A. 2d 109 ); and identification by one eyewitness, if believed, is sufficient for conviction.

Coates v. State, 232 Md. 72 , 191 A. 2d 579 . Each of the sentences imposed upon the applicant was within the statutory limit and his third contention — alleged disparity between his sentences and those imposed upon others — affords no basis for post conviction relief. Cothorn v. Warden, 221 Md. 581 , 155 A. 2d 652 ; Ellinger v. Warden, 224 Md. 648, 653 , 167 A. 2d 334 . See also Apple v. State, 190 Md. 661, 668 , 59 A. 2d 509 ; Duff v. State, 229 Md. 126 , 182 A. 2d 349 ; Stevens v. State, 232 Md. 33, 42-43 , 192 A. 2d 73 , cert. den. 375 U. S. 886 .

Cf. Howard v. Fleming, 191 U. S. 126, 135-36 . Assuming, without deciding, that the admission of the defendant’s prior criminal record, if improper (his contention (4)), would be a ground for post conviction relief, there is nothing to show that its admission was improper. The applicant took the stand in his own defense, and a prior criminal record tending to impeach his credibility was therefore admissible.

Cousins v. State, 230 Md. 2 , 185 A. 2d 488 ; Piles v. State, 233 Md. 487 , 197 A.