Harris v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

Collins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an application by Ronald Harris for leave to appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus by Judge Michael J. Manley. This petitioner was sentenced to the Maryland Penitentiary by Judge Tucker for ten years in two cases of larceny, two cases of burglary, and one case of unlawful use of an automobile. A few days after he started to serve his sentence a detainer was placed against him by reason of an indictment for robbery and assault with intent to rob.

Petitioner demanded trial on that indictment. See Harris v. State, 194 Md. 288 , 71 A. 2d 36 . Trial was granted and as a result he was sentenced to ten years in the Maryland Penitentiary to begin at end of the ten year sentence. The record shows that not only Judge Manley, but Judges Byrnes and Homey have denied his applications for writs of habeas corpus based on the trial in Prince George’s County.

The petitioner alleges here that he made application for a speedy trial but was denied the same. This same argument was presented in the case of Harris v. State, supra, which involved the quashing of the indictment. This Court there held in an opinion by Judge Grason that there had been no denial to appellant of a right to a speedy trial under the circumstances fully set forth therein. It is not necessary to repeat what was said in that case and to again set out the numerous authorities therein cited.

The additional letters submitted on this question present nothing new for the Court’s consideration. These could have been presented in that case. Also, habeas corpus will not lie to correct an issue of fact which has been adjudicated even though wrongly determined. Tyson v. Warden, 198 Md. 652 , 80 A. 2d 613 .

Copeland v. Wright, 188 Md. 666 , 53 A. 2d 533 . ⁶⁸⁷ Also, habeas corpus is not the proper remedy when a remedy by appeal is or was available. Carroll v Warden, 197 Md. 685 , 80 A. 2d 36 . Wilson v. Warden, 198 Md. 663 , 80 A. 2d 897 . Petitioner also alleges that he requested a bill of particulars but this was denied.

This Court has held that such a demand is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be