Nance v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On January 7, 1947, the appellant was tried in the Criminal Court of Baltimore City before Judge Smith, on a charge of robbery with a deadly weapon. He elected trial before the Court without a jury, declined to testify in his own behalf, and was convicted and sentenced to three years in the House of Correction. On March 12, 1947, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Baltimore City Court.

The application was refused by Judge Mason without a hearing, and from that refusal the case was appealed here. The petition relied ¹¹⁴ upon three grounds: that his sentence exceeded the punishment prescribed by law, that he was denied the right to counsel, and that the evidence produced by the State was not legally sufficient to sustain the conviction. There is no merit in the first contention. Sec. 558 of Art. 27 of the Code fixes a maximum penalty of twenty years for this offense.

Nor is there any merit in the third contention. The legal sufficiency of evidence to convict can not be reviewed in a habeas corpus porceeding. Bernard v. Warden, 187 Md. 273 , 49 A. 2d 737 ; Copeland v. Wright, 188 Md. 666 , 53 A. 2d 553 . The remaining question as to his right to counsel presents more difficulty.

The petition alleges that he was arrested on January 5, 1947, given a preliminary hearing on January 6, 1947, and tried in the Criminal Court on January 7, 1947, and that he did not have sufficient time to engage counsel to represent him. It further alleges that the Court did not appoint counsel to represent him. But the petition does not allege that he ever requested a postponement in order to obtain counsel, or that he made any request to the Court, before or during the trial for the appointment of counsel. The mere fact that he was tried without the benefit of counsel to represent him does not indicate a lack of due process.

Section 3B of Art. 42 of the Code (ch. 702, Acts 1945) provides: “No application shall be dismissed because technical requirements of pleading