Reeder v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an application for leave to appeal from a refusal of a writ of habeas corpus. The applicant was convicted of rape in Harford County in 1947, after a jury trial, and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was represented by counsel, and after a motion for new trial was overruled, no appeal was taken to this court.

In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus he alleged that the trial court did not have jurisdiction “because perjured testimony was deliberately used to obtain a conviction” and “because it clearly appears from the transcript of record of the case that the Relator * * * was wrongly identified as the perpetrator of the crime * * Judge Niles granted the petition, but at the hearing, ruled that the petition was insufficient and signed an order remanding the relator “with leave to file an amended petition”. This leave was “withdrawn by request of relator’s ⁶⁸⁵ counsel, after motion for immediate amendment denied”, to which motion the state objected. We think the court’s ruling was correct. A bald assertion that perjured testimony was deliberately used against him is insufficient, in the absence of “facts showing that the State’s officers used testimony known to be perjured, or participated in any conspiracy to defraud petitioner of his rights.” Sembly v. Warden, 190 Md. 744, 745 , 60 A. 2d 526 .

To the same effect, see State ex rel. Sisk v. Warden, 190 Md. 759 , 59 A. 2d 790 ; State ex rel. Celetano v. Wright, 192 Md. 713 , 63 A. 2d 635 ; and State ex rel. Heddings v. Superintendent, 193 Md. 723 , 68 A. 2d 675 .

In Rountree v. Wright, 189 Md. 292, 293 , 55 A. 2d 847 , Judge Markell, speaking for the court, said: “Even if these assertions in the brief had been allegations in the petition for habeas corpus, they would not have been