Hall v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

Per Curiam. Leonard Hall, Jr., applies for leave to appeal from the denial of his application for relief under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act (the UP CPA) by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County (Raine, J.). Hall was tried in that Court in November, 1959, on a charge of murder. The jury found him guilty of murder in the first degree and he was sentenced to death.

He appealed to this Court and the judgment was affirmed in Hall v. State, 223 Md. 158 , 162 A. 2d 751 . ⁶⁶⁴ In his amended application under the UP CPA Hall claims that his constitutional rights, both Federal and State, were violated in these ways: (a) that he was not afforded an adequate opportunity to testify in his own behalf; (b) that he was denied the right to counsel when questioned by police shortly after his arrest and gave a damaging statement, which was used against him and which could not have been obtained from him if he had then had counsel; and (c) that evidence obtained by an illegal search was used both to obtain damaging admissions from him and as evidence against him at his trial. Contentions (b) and (c) are both matters which could have been raised at the original trial and on direct appeal. Contention (b) was involved in somewhat different form at the trial and on appeal in challenging the voluntary character of Hall’s admissions. The fruits of the search now alleged to be illegal were admitted without any objection at the trial, nor was any question raised on the appeal as to the legality of the search or of the use of evidence obtained thereby.

Contention (b), we think, was finally adjudicated on the prior appeal, and even if it were not, it was waived. Any challenge to the legality of the search and the use of the fruits thereof was waived by failure to raise the question either at the trial or on appeal. Neither of these contentions may properly be raised under the UPCPA, since they have been either finally adjudicated or waived in the proceedings resulting in the conviction. Code (1960 Cum.

Supp.), Art. 27, Sec. 645 A (a); Galloway v. Warden, 221 Md. 611, 614 , 157 A. 2d 284 ; Jordan v. State, 221 Md. 134 , 156 A. 2d 453 . See also Rayne v. Warden, 223 Md. 688, 690 , 165 A. 2d 474 ; Rice v. Warden, 221 Md. 604 , 156 A. 2d 632 ; Mears v. Warden, 220 Md. 682 , 155 A. 2d 72 ; Banks v. Warden, 220 Md. 652 , 151 A. 2d 897 , holding that the illegality of a search and seizure may not be raised in Post Conviction proceedings. We do not express or imply any opinion as to the legality of the search and seizure here complained of. Contention (a) is the main reliance of the applicant.

He was represented at his trial and on appeal by counsel em ⁶⁶⁵ ployed for him by his