Maryland case law › Rice v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

Rice v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

214 Md. 613 (2001) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: DeniedCollins, J.✓ Good law
HoldingPhilip R.

Collins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an application for leave to appeal by Philip R. Rice from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner was found guilty by Judge Carter in the Criminal Court of Baltimore on December 14, 1956, in three cases of accessory to a crime of robbery with a deadly weapon. He was sentenced to twenty years in each case to run consecutively.

Petitioner claims there was no evidence to connect him with the crime charged, and that he was “framed” by the police and did not have a fair trial. It has been stated many times by this Court that the sufficiency of the evidence can be reviewed only on direct appeal and not on habeas corpus. Cunningham v. Warden, 213 Md. 642 , 131 A. 2d 394 . Petitioner further claims that he was placed in double jeopardy.

This contention is apparently based on the fact 616 that he had been previously convicted of another crime. This does not constitute double jeopardy. Even if it did, it cannot be raised on habeas corpus. Hicks v. Warden, 213 Md. 625 , 130 A. 2d 761 , and cases there cited.

Petitioner alleges that he was illegally arrested. The irregularity of an arrest cannot be inquired into on habeas corpus after a trial and conviction. Jackson v. Warden, 211 Md. 599 , 125 A. 2d 840 ; Price v. Warden, 212 Md. 661 , 129 A. 2d 120 . Petitioner further claims that he was questioned by several police officers for several days.

They would not let him call an attorney and he was mistreated by them. The allegation that statements were given to the police under duress is one that goes to the voluntary character of a statement or confession and can be raised on appeal but not on habeas corpus. White v. Warden, 211 Md. 623 , 126 A. 2d 294 . Furthermore, it is not shown in this case that a confession or statement was used against him.

Petitioner also complains that his court appointed attorneys did nothing for him at the trial. There is no allegation that he made any objection to the court about his trial. A mere allegation that an

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