Niblett v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction

Hammond, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On December 18, 1958, Paul Niblett was tried, convicted on the basis of his guilty pleas, and sentenced to two eighteen-month consecutive terms in two cases of uttering a forged instrument. He had been charged with both forgery and uttering in each of the two cases but had pleaded not guilty to the forgery charges. He was represented by counsel.

He subsequently filed a petition in forma pauperis for relief under the Post Conviction Procedure Act. Code (1959 Cum. Supp.), Art. 27, secs. 645A-645J. The same lawyer who represented him at the trial was appointed in the post conviction case.

Judge Henry dismissed the petition after a hearing, and from this dismissal Niblett now seeks leave to appeal. The petition contains some sweeping characterizations that almost all of his rights were disregarded and that the trial was a “mockery and disgrace,” but his main contentions, which are virtually unillumined by further details, are: 1. That he was not represented at the trial by “adequate” counsel. 2. That the facts were misconstrued. 3.

That he was held from September 4, 1958, until December 18, 1958, without bond. 4. That he did not receive a preliminary hearing, nor did he waive one. 5. That his arraignment was waived by his counsel without his authority and that petitioner did not know the arraignment was taking place. 6. That the testimony and evidence were not sufficient to support the conviction.

As to the first contention, as Judge Henry observed in his memorandum opinion, counsel was of petitioner’s own choosing and, furthermore, nothing shows that petitioner, made any complaint at the trial of any inadequacies, of which no specifics ⁵⁹¹ are given in the petition. The second and sixth contentions lack merit since petitioner, who is no stranger to the courts and who was not too dazzled by the proceedings to enter a not guilty plea to the forgeries, pleaded guilty to the crimes for which he was convicted and sentenced. As to the third contention,