Goetzke v. Warden

Orth, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an application for leave to appeal under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act from an order of June 2, 1966, of Judge John E. Raine, Jr., sitting in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, dismissing a petition for post conviction relief. The application for leave to appeal fails to contain a statement of the reasons why the order should be reversed or modified as required by Maryland Rule BK 46 b and could be denied for this reason. In his petition, applicant gives the following grounds of alleged error: 1) .That he was illegally arrested 2) That the admissibility of a confession made while being held incommunicado and without benefit of counsel violates his rights guaranteed him under the Constitution of the United States 3) That the evidence used against him was insufficient to support a verdict of guilty 4) That the court was without authority to render a verdict under a plea of nolo contendere.

Applicant pleaded nolo contendere on June 13, 1958, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County before Judge W. Albert Menchine on a charge of unlawful burning of a drug store. He was represented by counsel of his own choice and there is no allegation that he did not receive competent legal representation. A verdict of guilty was entered and on July 30, 1958, he was sentenced to seven years in the Maryland Penitentiary, sentence suspended and he was placed on seven years probation. Subsequently, he was charged with violation of probation as a result of conviction on four housebreaking offenses, ⁶ which cases are not under attack, and on April 10, 1959, probation was revoked and the confinement sentence in the Maryland Penitentiary was imposed.

Although applicant does not allege in his petition that he did not understand the nature and consequences of the plea of nolo contendere, the question was apparently raised at the hearing before Judge Raine. The transcript of the proceedings makes it clear that counsel had explained to applicant the nature of the plea, applicant testified fully and freely as to exactly what happened on the night of the offense and that as a matter of strategy he threw himself on the mercy of the court when the plea was entered hoping that confinement sentence would be avoided. The strategy was successful. Judge Raine found that the plea was freely and voluntarily made with full understanding of its nature and effect and the record clearly supports this finding.

The Court of Appeals has held, in Cohen v. State, 235 Md. 62, p. 69 , 200 A. 2d 368 , cert. den. 85 S. Ct. 84 , 379 U. S. 844 , 13 L. Ed. 2d 49 , “Maryland has long recognized that when a person pleads guilty, the