Frazier v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

Per Curiam. Charles Francis Frazier (applicant) was indicted in ten separate indictments numbered 4495/63 through 4504/63. The offenses charged included forgery, false pretenses, storehouse breaking, larceny and possession of a deadly weapon. When the case was brought on for trial and disposition before Judge Cullen, the applicant tendered pleas of nob contendere in indictments 4495, 4496 and 4497 and these pleas were accepted by the court and sentence imposed under the first count in each indictment, charging forgery, for a total of four years in the Maryland Penitentiary.

The sentences were concurrent. In indictments numbered 4498, 4499, 4501, 4502 and 4504 Judge Cullen found the applicant guilty but suspended the sentences. 1 In effect, the applicant contended in his petition for post conviction relief that his plea of nob contendere was incorrectly accepted by Judge Cullen because the applicant had been illegally arrested and his automobile had been the subject of an illegal search. The applicant was arrested pursuant to an ar ⁶⁷⁸ rest warrant obtained by Baltimore City police. No search warrant, however, was procured and there is a question as to whether the applicant’s car was searched legally incident to his lawful arrest or whether the fact that a police officer looked in and viewed a revolver protruding from under the seat of the applicant’s. automobile would have, of itself, justified a search of the car.

Cf. Shipley v. State, 243 Md. 262 , 220 A. 2d 585 (1966). Crowe & Williston v. State, 240 Md. 144 , 213 A. 2d 558 (1965); Johnson v. State, 238 Md. 528 , 209 A. 2d 765 (1965) and Corbin v. State, 237 Md. 486 , 206 A. 2d 809 (1965). In Cohen v. State, 235 Md. 62, 68-70 , 200 A. 2d 368 (1964) Judge Sybert, writing for the Court, said: “By pleading nolo contendere, he waived his right to object to the alleged procedural defects and his right to- have them considered on appeal. * * * “Maryland has long recognized that when a person pleads guilty, the judgment entered on the plea cannot ordinarily be reviewed on appeal if the plea was made freely and voluntarily with full understanding of its nature and effect, and the judgment properly entered. * * * This Court has stated that the effect of a plea- of guilty is to waive proof of any facts alleged in the indictment, but not objection to the indictment on the ground that the facts alleged did not constitute an indictable offense, nor objections relating to the jurisdiction of the court to try the defendant. * * * These cases, though involving pleas of guilty, are analogous to the