Evans v. Warden

Hammond, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. William Evans, Jr. was arrested, indicted and tried on the charge of attempted robbery with a deadly weapon. He was convicted by the trial court sitting without a jury. His motion for a new trial was denied by the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City,1 and he was sentenced to a term of twenty years in the Maryland Penitentiary.

He then caused an appeal to be taken to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the judgment in Evans v. State, 236 Md. 532 . At the time of the Court of Appeals decision, Evans had a writ of habeas corpus pending which was eventually denied by Judge Harris in the Baltimore City Court subsequent to the disposition of the appeal. The petitioner now raises four contentions under the Post Conviction Procedure Act. The first contention is that he was not represented by counsel at his preliminary hearing or when first arraigned.

At the hearing of this application for leave to appeal which was held before Judge Prendergast, petitioner testified that he pleaded not guilty at the preliminary hearing and at his arraignment. Such circumstances take this case outside the facts of White v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 59 , 10 L. Ed. 2d 193 (1963), where the Supreme Court considered the preliminary hearing in Maryland to be a “critical” stage in the proceedings, as defined in Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U. S. 52 , 7 L. Ed. 2d 114 (1961), when a guilty plea is entered by the defendant without aid of counsel and evidence of that plea is introduced at the trial. This Court has held that the White case does not apply in circum ³³⁵ stances such as those before us now. See Mercer v. State, 237 Md. 479, 485 , where the defendant made no plea at the preliminary hearing; and Fabian v. State, 235 Md. 306, 319 , and Arrington v. Warden, 232 Md. 672, 674 , where the defendant pleaded not guilty at the preliminary hearing.

Petitioner’s second contention alleges that he was not represented by counsel at the time he was sentenced. This claim is without substance. At the hearing, the petitioner admitted that Mr. James A. Ehrhart, his court-appointed trial counsel, was present but asserted that Mr. Ehrhart did nothing on his behalf and that petitioner had to address the court himself. The transcript of the proceedings reveals that this was not the case, and Judge Prendergast found his testimony in this respect to be false.

Petitioner’s next contention is that Mr. Ehrhart did an inadequate job of acquainting himself with the case and did not endeavor to gather the facts necessary for adequate representation. In particular, petitioner alleges that Mr. Ehrhart did not comply with his request to summon three alibi witnesses. In so far as these two contentions are treated as separate grounds for post conviction relief, the former cannot be considered because it amounts to no more than a bald allegation with no specific ground to support it and therefore affords no basis for relief.