State ex rel. Freeland v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

PER CURIAM. This is the second time Earl R. Freeland has applied here for leave to appeal from a refusal of a writ of habeas corpus. On his first application he alleged that he was committed in 1946 to the Federal Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, and while there the Maryland authorities filled, a detainer against him, and before the expiration of the term at Leavenworth he refused, to sign a waiver of .extradition to the State of Maryland; that he was ordered sent to the Federal Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, in order that he would be more easily available to- the' Maryland-authorities'; and that after he refused to submit to the transfer,' he was beátetí arid ⁷¹³ transferred to Lewisburg, and as a resullt of that treatment he arrived there in a nervous state. Petitioner further alleged on his first application that on December 15, 1947, he was taken to the Central Police Station in Baltimore, where he made a request for counsel, but the right to have counsel was denied and he was subjected to exhausting questioning during a period of about 36 hours.

He further alleged that on December 17, 1947, he was taken to the Baltimore City Jail, and on the following day was brought before Judge Sherbow in the Criminal Court of Baltimore for arraignment on the charge of robbery with deadly weapon. He contended that he was not allowed to have counsel until after he had been questioned and was forced to make his confession of guilt. He was sentenced to the Maryland Penitentiary for the term of seven and a half years. . That application for leave to appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals.

State ex rel. Freeland v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary, 193 Md. 696 , 65 A. 2d 886 . The present application contains the following additional allegations: (1) that he is being held under a defective commitment; (2) that he made numerous requests for a copy of the indictment against him, but each request was ignored, and these refusals deprived him of the right to enter a demurrer to the indictment; (3) that the indictment used in the extradition proceedings was not the indictment on which he was tried, and hence the Criminal Court did not have jurisdiction to try him on the second indictment before first trying him on the