Garrigan v. Superintendent of MaryLand State Reformatory for Males

⁶⁶⁴ Bruñe, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The applicant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus asserts five grounds for its issuance. These are: first, that the police repeatedly stated “that they would ‘have nothing to do’ with your Petitioner, either in proving him innocent or obtaining complete data in events surrounding [his] arrest”; second, that his prosecution as a second offender under the narcotics law placed him in double jeopardy by subjecting him to a second punishment for the same offense; third, that the indictment which set out his prior offense as well as the current offense with which he was charged, prejudiced him and prevented his obtaining a fair trial; fourth, that favoritism has been shown to others convicted under the same laws by granting them a conditional commutation of sentence, which constitutes the equivalent of a parole, though parole is denied narcotic second offenders until the minimum sentence has been served; and fifth, that when he expressed a desire to appeal, some unspecified “authorities of the Baltimore City Jail” misinformed him as to the time for appeal, saying that he could not appeal until ninety days after his conviction. He also makes some criticisms of the police for the information of the court, but does not rely upon these in support of his petition.

The applicant’s petition was denied by Judge John T. Tucker, sitting in the Baltimore City Court, and the applicant seeks leave to appeal. The police were not obligated to aid in the applicant’s defense. Cf. Parker v. Warden, 216 Md. 632, 635 , 139 A. 2d 728 , where it was held that the police were under no duty to furnish legal assistance to persons under arrest and awaiting trial.

A greater penalty is imposed for a second offense under the narcotics laws than for a first offense, but the punishment is for the new crime only, and a statute providing for a heavier sentence for a second offense is valid. McDonald v. Massachusetts, 180 U. S. 311 ; Beard v. State, 216 Md. 302, 313 , 140 A. 2d 672 . A form of indictment charging