Norris v. Warden

Per Curiam. This is an application for leave to appeal from an order of May 13, 1966, of Judge Meyer M. Cardin, sitting in the Crimi ⁷¹ nal Court of Baltimore, denying relief sought by a first petition filed by Joseph Norris under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act. On April 20, 1964, applicant pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary and was found guilty of another charge of burglary before Judge Edwin J. Harlan, presiding in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, and was sentenced to three years on each charge, the sentences to run consecutively. No motion for a new trial was made nor appeal noted.

On February 3, 1966, applicant filed a petition for relief listing six contentions: “1) Police interrogators neglected to inform the Petitioner of his right to have the advice of Counsel. “2) Petitioner was denied the right to legal Counsel at the time of his Preliminary Hearing. “3) Petitioner was denied his right to legal representation at the time of his arraignment. “4) Petitioner’s trial attorney (Court Appointed) was inadequate. “5) The evidence was insufficient to support a verdict of guilty. “6) And for such other and further grounds as will be urged at the hearing of this petition.” He notes “Through ignorance and lack of competence on the part of the Petitioner’s Counsel at trial, the Petitioner did not Appeal the above mentioned conviction to the Maryland Court of Appeals.” This will be considered as part of the fourth contention. The docket shows an application for leave to appeal filed June 13, 1966, although a letter from applicant to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals requesting an appeal is dated June 14, 1966. Assuming the docket entry to be correct, the appeal was filed within the time required by Maryland Rule BK 46 a, as June 12, 1966, was a Sunday. The application, however, does not comply with Maryland Rule BK 46 b, failing to contain a brief statement of the reasons why the order should be reversed or modified and may be denied for this reason alone.

We think, however, that the application should be denied on the merits of the contentions raised in the lower court. Johnson v. Director, 243 Md. 708 . ⁷² First Contention: At the hearing applicant did not contend that he requested counsel and was denied such request. Without deciding that a request for counsel is required, applicant does not come under the purview of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 , 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 (June 13, 1966) as Miranda is not retroactive. Meadows v. Warden, 243 Md. 710 ; Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 (1966).

Nor is there a contention that a confession was admitted into evidence, so the circumstances of his interrogation do not come within the facts of Escobedo v. Illinois, 378