Hobbs v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

Horney, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an application for leave to appeal under Code ⁶⁸⁵ (1958 Supp.) Art. 27 §§ 645A-645J, known as the Post Conviction Procedure Act. On January 7, 1947, the applicant was convicted by the Criminal Court of Baltimore (Smith, C. J.) of armed robbery upon his plea of guilty under three separate indictments, and was sentenced to a term of twenty years under each indictment, the sentences to run concurrently. On October 27, 1958, the applicant filed a petition for release under the Act “in forma pauperis.” The trial court (Sodaro, J.) denied the relief sought and dismissed the petition on November 7, 1958, because, as Judge Sodaro stated, the same allegations and contentions raised in the instant proceeding had already been adjudicated and no other substantial questions within the provisions of the Act had been raised by the petition.

Judge Sodaro also found that there was no necessity for the appointment of counsel or a hearing. The applicant in his petition alleges in substance (i) that he was tried and convicted without being arraigned, was never informed of the nature of the offense and the seriousness thereof, and was denied the right to question the witnesses against him; (ii) that when the court imposed its illegal sentence he protested and requested the appointment of counsel, which was ignored; (iii) that the indictments were illegal in that his name was alleged to be Joseph Hobbs whereas his real name is Joseph Hobbs, Jr.; and (iv) that the indictment was fatally defective because it alleged the same offense was committed on May 5, 1946, and on May 7, 1946. The applicant applied for leave to appeal from a denial of the writ of habeas corpus on two other occasions. He was unsuccessful both times.

In the first case, State ex rel. Hobbs v. Warden, 194 Md. 722 , 70 A. 2d 814 (1950), after noting that he had made twenty-eight prior applications for writs of habeas corpus or writs of error coram nobis all of which were denied, this Court held, among other things, that a lack of arraignment was not ground for release on habeas corpus if the accused pleaded guilty to the indictment when it was read to him and that it was not necessary to confront an accused with witnesses after