Hess v. State

Per Curiam. This is an application for leave to appeal from a denial of relief requested in a first petition under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act by Judge Irvine H. Rutledge, sitting in the Circuit Court for Washington County. On 30 March 1967 applicant was found guilty of assault by a jury in the Circuit Court for Washington County, Chief Judge D. Kenneth McLaughlin presiding. He was sentenced to three years in the Maryland House of Correction.

A motion for a new trial was denied on 5 April 1967. An appeal from the judgment was noted but dismissed by the applicant on 3 May 1967. The petition under the U.P.C.P.A., filed 3 July 1967, presented fourteen allegations of error. It appears that three additional allegations were presented at the hearing.

These seventeen allegations, in substance, pertained to the following matters: (1) The legality of the refusal of the magistrate to issue a warrant at the request of the applicant for the com ⁵¹¹ plaining witness’s arrest and the subsequent indictment of the applicant by the Grand Jury. (2) The right to a preliminary hearing. (3) The failure to give the Miranda warnings. (4) The dismissal, in error, by the prosecution of a witness-summoned by the defense.

(5) The complainant, who wanted to withdraw the charges against the petitioner, was advised not to do so by the State’s Attorney, who told him that it might jeopardize his parole status. (6) The jury did not consider testimony of defense witnesses. (7) The complainant’s testimony should have been stricken from the record. (8) The complainant’s testimony should have been impeached and the credibility of this testimony should have been brought before the jury by reason of his-previous confinement in a mental hospital.

(9) There was contradictory testimony of State’s witnesses. (10) The evidence was insufficient to convict. (11) The failure of the judge to instruct the jury as to the seriousness of the charge. (12) A finding of guilt was based on reputation rather than the evidence.

(13) The judge made prejudicial remarks. (14) His trial counsel was incompetent. (15) His trial counsel had a conflict of interest. (16) The jury saw pictures not introduced into evidence.

(17) The petitioner was denied due process and equal protection of the laws. The application does not contain a statement of the reasons-why the order should be reversed or modified as required by Md. Rule BK 46b, and may be denied on this ground. Goetzke v. Warden, 1 Md. App. 3 . It appears from the memorandum of Judge Rutledge accompanying the order that the applicant, at the hearing, pursued seven of these allegations — numbers three, four, ten, thirteen,. ⁵¹² fourteen, fifteen and sixteen.

It may be that the applicant thus abandoned the remaining allegations, and, if so, it would have been better for the hearing judge affirmatively so to state in his memorandum. But in any event we find no merit in any of the allegations and dispose of them without remand to avoid useless further consideration thereof. See Duff v. Warden, 234 Md. 646 . (1) and (2) The applicant alleged in his petition that he first “confronted” the magistrate to obtain a warrant for the arrest of the prosecuting witness.

The magistrate refused to issue the warrant but did issue a warrant at the request of the prosecuting witness for the arrest of the applican. The matter was apparently taken before the grand jury without a preliminary hearing and the applicant was indicted. The magistrate’s refusal to issue a warrant for the arrest of the prosecuting witness is no ground for post conviction relief, and there is no requirement that a preliminary hearing be held. Ross v. Warden, 1 Md. App. 46 .

(3) Judge Rutledge found that no statement or confession given by the applicant was introduced in evidence at the trial. Therefore Mi randa v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , is not applicable. Crosby v. State, 2 Md. App. 578 . (4) The State did not contest that a witness summoned by the applicant was erroneously dismissed by the State’s Attorney.

The hearing court found, however, that when the applicant learned of this he decided, after consultation with his counsel, not to ask for a continuance but to proceed without the witness. The applicant cannot now complain. Further, the hearing court found that the testimony of the witness would have been merely cumulative. 1 ⁵¹³ (5) This allegation affords no ground for relief. “In general, the law seeks to remedy private and public wrongs. A private wrong, otherwise termed a ‘tort’ or ‘civil injury’ is an infringement