Maryland case law › Meleganich v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

Meleganich v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

213 Md. 648 (2001) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: DeniedCoeens, J.✓ Good law
HoldingCharles Meleganich applied for leave to appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus by the Criminal Court of Baltimore.

Coeeins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an application for leave to appeal by Charles Meleganich from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner was brought before the trial judge in the Criminal Court of Baltimore as a second offender for violation of the narcotic laws on March 18, 1953, and sentenced to a term of eight years in the Maryland Penitentiary. He contends that the officers entered his room, found a quantity of marijuana and that this search was made with 650 out a search warrant.

Under Code, 1951, Article 27, Section 368, in prosecutions relating to narcotic drugs, it is specifically provided that the Bouse Act, Code, 1951, Article 35, Section 5, as to illegal searches and seizures, shall not apply. Shivers v. Warden, 211 Md. 612 , 125 A. 2d 671 . Furthermore, this Court on numerous occasions has held that the legality of a search and seizure may not be raised on habeas corpus. Shivers v. Warden, supra, and cases there cited.

Petitioner further made the following complaints stated in this paragraph. During the first week of March, 1953, he was taken before the trial judge and asked for and received a postponement in order to obtain legal counsel. He then asked a friend, Mr. Silvio Perrela, to obtain a lawyer for him. This lawyer, so obtained, contacted him at the jail, reviewed his case and told him he had not been given a retainer fee by Mr. Perrela and that he could not handle the case without that fee, and that Mr. Perrela had notified him by telephone that he would arrive from New York with the money in the near future.

He was instructed by that attorney that if he should be brought before the court before the money arrived he should ask for another postponement. On March 18th he was again brought before the trial judge. He explained the situation to him and asked for another postponement. His lawyer was in court and corroborated his story, and stated that any day Mr. Silvio Perrela would arrive

This is a preview of Meleganich v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.