Duff v. Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary

Sybert, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On December 14, 1961, the applicant, John Robert Duff, was found guilty of assault with intent to murder, assault and battery, and carrying a concealed weapon, by a jury in the Circuit Court for Cecil County, and was sentenced to serve ten years in the penitentiary. On appeal, where the only question raised ⁶⁴⁷ was whether the sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment, the conviction was affirmed. Duff v. State, 229 Md. 126, 182 A. 2d 349 (1962).

On June 24, 1963, the applicant filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Cecil County seeking relief under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act. The court appointed counsel for the applicant. Counsel filed a supplementary petition and later the applicant filed an additional petition. At a hearing the court (Keating, J.) heard the testimony of the applicant and of his trial counsel, and a transcript of the testimony at the trial was introduced in evidence by the applicant.

The lower court denied relief, and an application for leave to appeal to this Court was filed. In the petitions the applicant contended that: (1) there was a prejudicial and unwarranted separation of the jury at the end of the trial after the case had been submitted to the jury, but before deliberations had begun; (2) the applicant was illegally detained for six weeks before trial without being given a preliminary hearing; (3) he was held incommunicado for 6 weeks prior to his arraignment; ; (4) bail was excessive ; (5) he was not informed of the charges against him until arraignment, which was six weeks after he was taken into custody; (6) he was illegally arrested; (7) the court did not appoint counsel prior to the arraignment; (8) his lawyer was incompetent both at the original trial and in prosecuting his direct appeal; (9) the trial judge improperly assisted the prosecution ; (10) there was no intent to kill; (11) he did not receive a speedy trial; (12) he acted in self defense; (13) he was not provided with a transcript when he appealed, either by his attorney or by the clerk of the circuit court. The lower court adequately answered contentions (1), (2), (3), (4) and (8), and for the reasons assigned by it we will deny the application for leave to appeal as to those contentions. ⁶⁴⁸ However, the lower court made no findings, either factual or legal, with