Strosnider v. Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary

Per Curiam. Petitioner has applied for leave to appeal from the denial of post conviction relief by Judge E. Mackall Childs in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County on August 30, 1965, following a hearing on remand by this Court in Strosnider v. Warden, 228 Md. 663, 180 A. 2d 854 (1962). In that case, we ruled that the lower court should determine factual questions raised by the petitioner, alleging perjured police testimony and suppression of evidence by the State. The court below (O. Bowie Duckett, J.) was affirmed in its rulings on all other points, for the reasons stated in Strosnider v. State, supra.

On remand, interrogatories were filed by the State, demanding particulars of the petitioner’s allegations. The petitioner answered, setting forth 19 alleged instances of perjury and nine alleged instances of suppression. All of these alleged errors were considered by Judge Childs and denied in a thorough opinion. After carefully reading the trial transcript, we fully agree with Judge Childs’ rulings as to each allegation of perjury and suppression of evidence.

With respect to these matters, we adopt his opinion, a copy of which has been filed with this opinion. ⁶⁹⁴ In this application, however, the petitioner also raises additional grounds for relief. We believe these new allegations likewise lack merit. I. Petitioner claims that his confession was obtained in violation of his rights, under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, to be advised of his right to counsel and of his right to remain silent. He also maintains that, under all the circumstances of his detention, his confession was coerced.

Both of these contentions were raised at the petitioner’s trial; the trial court, after hearing testimony at great length, held the confession voluntary and admissible. The petitioner failed to take a timely direct appeal from his conviction and sentence, nor did he raise these contentions in his first petition for post conviction relief. Under these circumstances, we hold that the allegations are waived and, therefore, not open to collateral attack. In so ruling, we apply the test prescribed by the Legislature in Article 27A, sec. 645A (c) (Supp. 1965), insuring that our procedural rules do not unduly impede the hearing of federal constitutional claims in the courts of this State.

The petitioner, who had counsel appointed for him, presented no circumstances whatsoever to rebut the presumption that his failure to follow state procedures — designed for an orderly presentation-of his contentions — was not knowingly and intelligently made. We believe Judge Childs was correct in not ruling on these alleged errors. Article 27, sec. 645A(a). Even assuming the police had failed to advise petitioner that he had a right to counsel, the decisions of the