Holt v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

Horney, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is the second time that Joseph R. Holt has sought relief in a collateral proceeding from convictions for grand larceny and breaking and entering and the imposition of consecutive sentences totaling twenty-four years in the Penitentiary. This is an application for leave to appeal from a denial of post conviction relief. The previous application for leave to appeal was from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus.

See Holt v. Warden, 211 Md. 619 , 125 A. 2d 842 (1956). When the applicant was arraigned on December 16, 1953, on one indictment (herein called the first), he claims he plead not guilty to the count charging him with larceny and was never tried therefor. On the same day he was also arraigned on another indictment (herein called the second) and plead not guilty to the count charging him with breaking and entering, but admits that on March 3, 1954, he changed his plea to guilty of the latter charge. On April 21, 1954, he was sentenced to fourteen years and ten years, respectively, on the first and second indictments.

The record shows that a plea of “not guilty” to the larceny charge had been erroneously recorded and that the clerical error had been subsequently corrected by the clerk to “guilty,” which, according to the proof in the habeas corpus proceeding, was proper. In the habeas corpus proceeding ( 211 Md. 619 ), the chief contention was, since he claimed he had never been tried for larceny, that the sentence for that offense was illegal. He also claimed in that proceeding, since he was indicted at a non-jury term of court, that the indictment was unlawful. Application for the writ was denied on both points.

In the interim between the two collateral proceedings in this ⁶⁵⁶ State, the applicant also applied to the United States Court for the District of Maryland for a writ of habeas corpus. In the federal proceeding Judge W. Calvin Chesnut, after a two-day hearing, found that the applicant “did in fact plead guilty contrary to his present contention” to the count for larceny in the first indictment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court in Holt v. Peppersack, 249 F. 2d 653 (1957). In this post conviction proceeding, the applicant alleges that he was arraigned and sentenced on the larceny charge without benefit of counsel and still contends that he plead not guilty and was sentenced without a trial.

With respect to the breaking and entering charge, the applicant contends that he plead guilty to unlocking the door but not to entering the “burglarized” premises