Maryland case law › Hoskins v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction

Hoskins v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction

235 Md. 613 (1964) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: DeniedHenderson, J.✓ Good law
HoldingHoskins sought leave to appeal from the denial of post conviction relief, pressing only the alleged denial of counsel.

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In this application for leave to appeal from a denial of post 614 conviction relief, the only point pressed is the alleged denial of counsel. The petitioner was arrested in September, 1962, waived indictments, and was tried before Judge Evans on three informations filed by the State’s Attorney, charging breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor (presumably under Code (1957), Art. 27, sec. 342) on three separate occasions. The third information contained another count, charging breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony (presumably under Code (1963 Supp.), Art. 27, sec. 32).

Apparently the accused had been caught in the act of one of these breakings and voluntarily admitted the other two. When arraigned he pleaded guilty to each misdemeanor charge and was sentenced to eighteen months on each to run consecutively. The so-called felony count, to which the accused pleaded not guilty, was apparently nol. prossed. At the arraignment on September 14, 1962, he was asked to plead and did so to each charge.

When asked whether he had a lawyer he said he did not, and did not intend to retain one. He said he realized he had a right to retain one if he wished, but that he did not “wish to have a lawyer.” .In his petition for post conviction relief the petitioner admitted that he “did not request counsel as an indigent whereas he was indigent after his money being taken from him by the police * * This case arose prior to Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 , and prior to our change in Rule 719 b, effective August 10, 1963. Nevertheless, under the Rule as it stood in September, 1962, the court would have been obliged to appoint counsel for an indigent if requested, since it is conceded that the maximum statutory confinement under the so-called felony count was for a period of more than five years. Some point is made of the fact that the guilty plea was accepted prior-to the waiver of counsel.

The colloquy

This is a preview of Hoskins v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.