Walker v. Warden

Per Curiam. This is an application for leave to appeal from an order of September 16, 1966, of Judge J. Harold Grady, sitting in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, denying relief requested in the applicant’s petition under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act, filed December 30,1965. The applicant was convicted on December 23, 1959, of robbery with a deadly weapon and on January 7, 1960, was sentenced to twenty (20) years in the Maryland Penitentiary. His conviction was affirmed by the Maryland Court of Appeals.

Walker v. State, 223 Md. 243 . After twoi unsuccessful Post Conviction petitions, applicant was granted a new trial by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a habeas corpus proceeding, on the basis of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 . Walker v. Peppersack, 316 F. 2d 119 . He was again convicted on September 13, 1963, at his second trial, and sentenced to twenty (20) years in the Maryland Penitentiary.

This conviction was affirmed by the Maryland Court of Appeals on February 11, 1965. Walker v. State, 237 Md. 516 . The applicant’s allegations of error are, in substance, as follows : 1. That he was illegally arrested, there being no warrant, reasonable grounds, nor probable cause. ⁵³⁶ 2.

The oral testimony at trial, as well as the identification of the petitioner’s person, followed from the illegal arrest and an illegal search and seizure. 3. Evidence at trial failed to sustain the allegation in the indictment concerning ownership of the property allegedly stolen. 4. The Grand Jury that indicted the applicant and the Judge who sat as trier of fact at his trial were required to declare a belief in the existence of God in violation of the applicant’s constitutional rights. 5. Perjured testimony was given by the witness, Estelle Jackson, and the State knew that such testimony was per-j ured at the time that it was given.

As to the applicant’s first two allegations, they were answered on the merits in his appeal from his second trial, Walker v. State, 237 Md. 516 . They are therefore deemed to be finally litigated under Maryland Code, (1967 Replacement Volume) Art. 27, § 645A b, there being no constitutional standards imposed, not theretofore recognized, within the purview of § 645A d. For this reason they afford him no relief under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act. Bagley v. Warden, 1 Md. App. 154, 158 .

Applicant’s third