Groh v. Warden

Per Curiam. On September 11, 1940, Martin Francis Groh was convicted of murder in the first degree after a jury trial in the Criminal Court of Baltimore. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Maryland Penitentiary. He took no direct appeal.

He filed this post conviction petition on February 17, 1966. A hearing was held before Judge Joseph U. Carter, and an order denying relief was filed on December 28,1966. ⁶⁷⁶ In his petition, applicant alleges five grounds for relief: 1. That he was illegally arrested without a warrant and without probable cause. 2. That he was denied assistance of counsel during the time of interrogation. -3.

That his court-appointed counsel was so incompetent as to amount to no representation at all, in that: (a) he failed to prepare a proper defense ; (b) he failed to object to incriminating evidence which was used in court against petitioner. 4. That the evidence was insufficient to support a verdict of guilty of first degree murder. 5. That the petitioner was denied due process of law and was thereby prejudiced, due to the fact that while the jury was deliberating, the judge called the jury from the jury room and advised them that it was getting late and that they could go home and return the following morning in order to finish their deliberation and reach a verdict. Adjudication of these contentions has been rendered difficult because of the absence of the transcript of the original trial, •especially with respect to contentions 2, 3, and 5.

In the twenty-six years intervening between the trial and the filing of this petition, the court reporter passed away and his notes were lost. As to the first contention, the hearing judge found records which established that there was, in fact, a warrant for petitioner’s arrest. Therefore, the arrest was legal and the first contention is without merit. The second contention — that petitioner was denied assistance ■of counsel at the time of interrogation — is likewise without merit.

Applicant testified at the hearing that he was detained at police headquarters for three days and interrogated intermittently until he made a statement, and that police denied his repeated requests to provide him with a lawyer. Without a transcript, there is no conclusive evidence that this statement was •ever introduced into evidence at the trial. Applicant testified at the post conviction hearing that, at the trial, the State’s Attorney started to read his written statement, but the judge “told ⁶⁷⁷ him not to” or “told him that it wasn’t necessary” even though the applicant’s attorney had not objected to it. Even if the statement had been admitted at trial, it is well established that Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 and Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478, are not retroactive.

Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719 ; Palmer v. Warden, 245 Md. 673 ; Cole v. Warden, 1 Md. App. 21 . As to applicant’s third contention — that applicant was represented by incompetent counsel — the hearing judge cited Norvell v.