Smith v. Warden

Per Curiam. Ronald Harry Smith seeks leave to appeal from the denial of relief under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act by Judge T. Hunt Mayfield, presiding in the Circuit Court for Howard County, after an evidentiary hearing at which he was represented by appointed counsel. The applicant was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Howard County of first degree murder on 4 June 1966. A life sentence was imposed.

He did not appeal from the judgment. On 10 July 1967 he filed a petition for relief under the U.P.C.P.A. in which he presented eight allegations, which in substance were as follows: 1) that he did not receive a fair trial because of unfavorable publicity through newspapers and other news media, and that the Judge was prejudiced. 2) that the State’s Attorney had made certain remarks in his opening statement to the jury which were not borne out by the evidence and which prejudiced the jury. 3) that the court erred in allowing photographs of the deceased victim to be admitted into evidence. 4) that the court should have granted a separate jury trial on the question of his insanity; that the issue of insanity, as well as the issue of guilt or innocence, were both submitted to the same jury, which jury, in determining his guilt, had overlooked the issue of insanity. 5) that the Director of Clifton T. Perkins Hospital and the representative of the Department of Mental Hygiene were prejudiced in their testimony. 6) that the evidence admitted at his trial was obtained through illegal search and seizure and was, therefore, improperly admitted into evidence. 7) that the court erroneously admitted into evidence his confession in the absence of proper warning, contrary to the rule of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 . ⁵⁵³ 8) that the Anne Arundel County Police Department had withheld pertinent information, which if presented, would have been sufficient to have placed considerable doubt on the reliability of certain witnesses. The application for leave to appeal does not contain a statement of the reasons why the order should be reversed or modified as required by Md. Rule BK46b, and may be denied on this ground alone. Goetzke v. Warden, 1 Md. App. 3 .

In any event, the allegations provide no grounds entitling the applicant