Maryland case law › Gopshes v. Warden

Gopshes v. Warden

240 Md. 732 (1965) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: DeniedPer Curiam✓ Good law
HoldingIn this post-conviction proceeding under the Maryland Post Conviction Procedure Act, the petitioner Gopshes sought relief from his conviction of assault with intent to commit rape, which had been affirmed on direct appeal (Gopshes v.

Per Curiam. In this application for leave to appeal under the Post Conviction Procedure Act, the petitioner seeks relief from his judgment of conviction of assault with intent to commit rape. On direct appeal, the judgment was affirmed, Gopshes v. State, 232 Md. 208 , 192 A. 2d 500 (1963). In his first application for post 733 conviction relief, he contended that his trial counsel was inept.

After a hearing in the Circuit Court for Howard County, Judge Evans denied the application. We affirmed, Gopshes v. Warden, 237 Md. 625 , 206 A. 2d 243 (1965). Petitioner now contends that he was denied his constitutional rights because he was not represented by counsel during all stages of the pretrial proceedings, including before and during police interrogation. He argues that, under recent Supreme Court decisions, he need not show how he was prejudiced.

His application was denied by Judge Weant. We affirm the order of denial. The petitioner pled not guilty at his arraignment on February 9, 1962 in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. On March 21, 1962 he elected a jury trial and requested a change of venue.

Two days later the case was removed to the Circuit Court for Howard County. His counsel entered his appearance prior to the trial. There is no allegation or showing that the petitioner made any statement to the police or that any evidence as a result of police interrogation was introduced at the trial. Under the law of this state, the police are not required to obtain

This is a preview of Gopshes v. Warden. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.