Gleaton v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

Prescott, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In the instant case, Judge Rasin afforded the applicant a full evidentiary hearing on all federal and state constitutional questions raised by him, upon which he had not previously had a full evidentiary hearing and a final determination as to his constitutional rights, (and, perhaps, more: see Gleaton v. State, 235 Md. 271 ). The judge, thereafter, filed a comprehensive opinion setting forth his findings of fact. He then applied the facts as he found them to the law appertaining thereto, which disclosed that, applying the tests and standards as laid down by the Supreme Court, applicant had been denied no state or federal constitutional rights.

This, we think, is the course prescribed by the Supreme Court ¹³⁶ in its recent decisions, relative to federal constitutional rights. Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391 ; Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293 ; Sanders v. United States, 373 U. S. 1 ; Henry v. Mississippi., 379 U, S. 443. See also, Meader, “Accommodating State Criminal Procedure and Federal Post Conviction Review,” 50 A.B.A.J. No. 10. 1 (There is no question involved in this application relating to an effectual waiver, or forfeiture, of any constitutional rights. Henry v. Mississippi, supra.) Therefore, we shall deny the