State Ex Rel. Harmon v. Superintendent, Maryland State Reformatory for Males

PER CURIAM. Charles Harmon, who was sentenced by the Criminal Court of Baltimore to the Maryland State Reformatory for Males, applies here for leave to appeal from a refusal of a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner alleges that he was arrested in one of the parks of Baltimore for improper conduct in violation of a rule of the Board of Park Commissioners, for which the penalty was a fine of not more than $50; but that when the park police arrived, the complaining witness declared that he had been robbed. Petitioner further alleges that he was taken to the Northern Police Station, and after a preliminary hearing was held for the action of the grand jury.

He was indicted for robbery, and on June 3, 1948, was found guilty of that crime by the Crimnal Court and sentenced to serve not more than two years in the Reformatory for Males. In his first application for habeas corpus before Judge Warnken, petitioner urged particularly that the statute, Code 1939, art. 27, sec. 557, provides that every person convicted of the crime of robbery shall be sentenced to the Penitentiary, and that the Criminal Court had no authority to commit him to the Reformatory for Males. The Legislature of Maryland, however, has expressly provided that the Maryland State Reformatory for Males shall be a place of confinement and training for male offenders from 16 to 25 years of age, and that the Courts of this State, instead of imposing sentences of fixed duration in other institutions upon such offenders, may, in ⁶⁹⁵ their discretion, sentence them to that Reformatory for an indetermined period of time, which shall not exceed the maximum term of imprisonment provided by statute for the offense of which said person was convicted. Laws of 1947, ch. 924, Code Supp. 1947, art. 27, sec. 758.

Petitioner was 16 years old at the time of his trial. Therefore, the Court had statutory authority to commit him to the Reformatory. After Judge Warnken refused to order petitioner’s discharge, petitioner applied to Judge Sayler for a writ of habeas corpus, but he denied the writ without a hearing. It was urged by petitioner’s attorney that the second petition contained additional grounds which