Szukiewicz v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

Coeeins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an application for leave to appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment in the Maryland Penitentiary by Judge Sherbow in the Criminal Court of Baltimore City on May 29, 1947. He was represented by counsel, Mr. Marion A. Figinski, at the trial.

He has made two previous applications for the writ to the United States District Court, one to the Circuit Court for Howard County, one to Judge France, and one to Judge Carter in Baltimore, all of which were denied. We are unable to locate any former appeal to this Court. ⁶³⁹ Immediately prior to the trial petitioner entered a plea of not guilty and was tried by the court without a jury. He contends that no preliminary hearing was held. This cannot be raised on habeas corpus.

Pritchard v. Warden, 209 Md. 662 , 121 A. 2d 696 . He claims that he was held in jail an unreasonable time before trial. After trial and conviction the extent or legality of initial detention cannot be raised on habeas corpus. Wagner v. Warden, 205 Md. 648 , 109 A. 2d 118 , and cases there cited.

He further claims that he was not given any information regarding the charge against him. He was represented by competent counsel who must have known the charge. However, this allegation goes only to the regularity of the proceedings and not to the jurisdiction of the trial court and cannot be raised on habeas corpus. Pritchard v. Warden, supra.

Petitioner also claims that he was denied arraignment. This cannot be raised on habeas corpus. Wilhelm v. Warden, 209 Md. 624, 120 A. 2d 195 . He complains that the State witnesses and eyewitnesses were not produced to testify.

He does not allege that he was denied the right to call witnesses in his own behalf. Walker v. Warden, 198 Md. 653 , 80 A. 2d 614 . Petitioner further states that he could not speak English and he accepted Mr. Figinski as his attorney because he spoke Polish and that he did not properly represent him. If petitioner did not speak English it is evident that he has no way of judging whether his attorney properly represented him or not.

If he did think that he was not being properly represented, he does not allege that he complained to the court. Petitioner further