Farrow v. Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary

Per Curiam. On 1 February 1963 the petitioner was found guilty by a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore with Judge Charles D. Harris presiding, of the crimes of assault with intent to rape and committing an unnatural or perverted sexual practice. He was sentenced to two consecutive ten year terms in the Maryland Penitentiary. We affirmed the judgment and sentence of the lower court in Farrow v. State, 233 Md. 526 , 197 A. 2d 434 (1963).

During his incarceration, petitioner has filed six habeas corpus petitions, all of which have been denied. On 13 May 1964 petitioner filed an application for relief under the Maryland Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act. After a full evidentiary hearing, Judge Joseph E. Carter denied the relief sought. On 22 March 1965 petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal from the decision below.

Petitioner raises a variety of contentions in his application. The first two involve the admission of evidence which petitioner claims are the fruits of illegal searches and seizures, one at the time of arrest and one at the police station. These contentions were raised and finally determined in petitioner’s original appeal, 233 Md. 526 , 197 A. 2d 434 (1963), and, therefore, can form no basis for post conviction relief. Ralph v. Warden, 230 Md. 616 , 185 A. 2d 366 (1962).

The same can be said for petitioner’s contention that a police officer was improperly allowed to give hearsay testimony. Petitioner also charges that the state agreed to try him for rape but instead tried him for robbery. Apparently the claim ⁷²⁶ is based on the fact that the evidence on the rape charge necessarily involved throwing some light on the robbery during which it took place. Judge Harris properly cautioned the jury as to such evidence and in our opinion petitioner was not prejudiced by it. ' Petitioner next claims that the state improperly suppressed the