Wain v. Warden

Brtjnr, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The applicant, Wain, seeks leave to appeal from the denial by Judge Phillip H. Dorsey, Jr., of the Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County, of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. ⁶⁵² Wain entered pleas of guilty in that Court on October 18, 1956, to three indictments, which, respectively, charged larceny of goods belonging to three different individuals. In each case the value of the articles stolen exceeded $100, and the maximum sentence under any of the indictments was fifteen years’ imprisonment. Code (1951), Article 27, Section 405.

On October 18, 1956, Judge Digges sentenced Wain to five years’ imprisonment under each indictment, and directed that the sentences run consecutively. Wain filed a petition for reduction of sentence on October 26th, and on October 30, 1956, the original sentences were stricken out and he was then sentenced to a total of eight years in the House of Correction, five years in the first case, three years in the second and three years in the third. The sentence in the second case was to follow that in the first, and the sentence in the third case was made concurrent with that in the second. He makes numerous contentions in support of his petition.

He alleges that he was illegally arrested, but states no facts to support this contention. It is not available on habeas corpus. Szukiewicz v. Warden, 213 Md. 636 , 131 A. 2d 390 . He claims that he was induced by a promise, which was not kept, to waive extradition.

This is not a ground for habeas corpus. Hickman v. Warden, 203 Md. 668 , 99 A. 2d 730 . He claims that he was the victim of undue publicity. He alleges no facts in support of this claim.

Publicity, too, is not a ground for habeas corpits. Randall v. Warden, 208 Md. 667 , 119 A. 2d 712 . His allegations that he was never indicted and was not furnished with copies of the indictments against him are directly refuted by the docket entries, and it was proper for Judge Dorsey to consider them. Roberts v. Warden, 211 Md. 639 , 126 A. 2d 857 .

He claims that because all of the articles which he was charged with stealing were taken from one place, there should have been but one charge of larceny. This question could have been raised at the trial, but is not available