McCoy v. Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary

Per Curiam. On February 27, 1962, the applicant pleaded guilty to two indictments charging robbery with a deadly weapon, and later ⁶¹⁷ was sentenced to twenty years and five years in the Maryland Penitentiary, to be served consecutively. There was no motion for a new trial, nor any appeal. The applicant filed in the Criminal Court of Baltimore a petition for relief under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act, contending: (1) he was arrested without “a search and seizure” warrant; (2) his confession was involuntary, having been made in response to coercion, threats and promises; (3) he was held incommunicado for three days during which time no one was allowed to see him, nor was he permitted to call his attorney or family; (4) he was held for 5 days before being taken before a magistrate; (5) the police failed to advise him of his constitutional right not to say anything; (6) his privately employed counsel induced him to plead guilty without explaining the consequences of such a plea; (7) his counsel did not properly prepare his defense; (8) his counsel did not adequately defend him because the same counsel was appointed by the court to defend two co-defendants.

Pie now seeks leave to appeal from an order denying him relief. The first question which must be determined is whether the applicant intelligently, freely and knowingly entered a plea of guilty with full understanding of its nature and effect and of the facts on which it was founded, and whether the court properly accepted the plea. If this question is answered in the affirmative, the plea of guilty amounted to a “conviction of the highest order” and constituted a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defects. Roberts v. Warden, 221 Md. 576 ; Case v. State, 228 Md. 551 ; Bloombaum v. United States, 211 F.