Spencer v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction
Hammond, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Everett Edmon Spencer withdrew his not guilty plea and, through counsel, pleaded guilty to larceny at his trial on February 16, 1959. After a pre-sentence investigation by the Department of Parole and Probation, the court sentenced him to two years’ confinement in the Maryland House of Correction. The following June Spencer filed a petition for relief under the Post Conviction Procedure Act.
Counsel was appointed to represent him and a hearing, at which petitioner was not present, was held before Judge Marbury, who dismissed the petition. Petitioner seeks leave to appeal. Spencer contends generally that he was not guilty and that he did not have a fair trial. The first contention does not make a case for post conviction review, State v. D’Onofrio, 221 Md. 20 , and the latter is not supported by any specific averments of fact, which it must be if it is to be effective.
Niblett v. Warden, 221 Md. 588 . Spencer made other allegations which can be summarized and disposed of in this wise: (1) That his lawyer pleaded him guilty and had him tried by a judge when he wanted to plead not guilty and have a jury trial. He alleges in his brief on appeal, although not in the original petition, that he complained of this to the lawyer but he does not say that he made the complaint known to the court. Accordingly, the point cannot be raised now.
Dobson v. Warden, 220 Md. 689 ; Banks v. State, 203 Md. 488 . (2) That his sentence was too harsh, which was attributable to his counsel’s ineptitude and lack of diligence. His sentence is well within the 15 year maximum (Code (1957), Art. 27, Sec. 340, although the record does not show the value of the goods stolen, but no point is made of this by petitioner) and was imposed after a pre-sentence investigation. The alleged shortcomings or wrong guesses of counsel are 585 not subjects for post conviction review.
Banks v. Warden, 221 Md. 592 . The most serious claim Spencer makes in his petition is “that
This is a preview of Spencer v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.