Green v. Warden

Per Curiam. This is an application for leave to appeal from an order filed on July 21, 1967, by Judge Robert I. H. Hammerman, sitting ²⁶⁸ in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, denying relief sought under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act. As stated by Judge Hammerman in his memorandum opinion, the applicant raised the following contentions: 1. That petitioner was the subject of an illegal arrest for the reasons that: a.

He was not a resident of the house in which he was arrested, b. The police had no probable cause to arrest him, c. That the narcotics were found in the hall of the home in which he was arrested and he was charged with their possession. 2. That the police gave perjured testimony at the time of trial. 3.

That he was not properly represented by his court appointed lawyer. Judge Hammerman stated that: “Petitioner’s counsel conceded at the outset and at the conclusion of the hearing that the first two grounds were not proper subjects for review on Post Conviction, that she understood that these issues were raised at the time of trial, and that she was not pressing them at this time.” The mere fact of an illegal arrest is not grounds for relief under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act, Slater v. Warden, 233 Md. 609 , as the legality of the arrest is immaterial where no fruits of the arrest are introduced into evidence at the trial against the accused; Ogle v. Warden, 236 Md. 425 , but where the petitioner alleges, as he seems to do in this case, that evidence was seized as a result of the illegal arrest, this constitutes an allegation of an illegal search and seizure and may properly be raised under the Act. Davis v. Warden, 232 Md. 670 ; Fennell v. Warden. 236 Md. 423 ; Austin v. Director, 237 Md. 314 . Since this issue was not pressed at the hearing, it can be considered as abandoned.

Szukiewicz v. Warden, 1 Md. App. 61 . However, we note that the lower court found that there was nothing in the testimony of the