Wallace v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

.PER Curiam. The applicant filed application for relief under the Post ⁶⁷¹ Conviction Procedure Act seeking to set aside his convictions on pleas of guilty to charges of robbery with a deadly weapon and of carrying a deadly weapon, for which he was sentenced to terms of twenty years and two years, respectively, the latter to run concurrently with the former. His application presents claims: (i) that the trial judge “did not advise [him] of [his] rights to a fair and impartial trial under the Due Process of Law Clauses and Equal Protection of the Law Clauses of Both the Federal and State Constitutions;” (ii) that his court appointed attorney did not defend him properly; and (iii) that he learned later that the gun was harmless and, therefore, it was not a deadly weapon, and he should have been found guilty of robbery, which carries a penalty of ten years. He sought a reduction in his sentence from twenty years to ten years.

After a hearing at which both the applicant and the State were represented by counsel (counsel for the applicant having been appointed for him as an indigent), Judge Tucker denied the application in a fifteen page opinion and order, which sets forth adequate grounds for his action. We find no merit in the applicant’s first contention with regard to failing to advise him of his rights. See Snead v. Warden, 215 Md. 595 , 135 A. 2d 630 (generally) ; Tillett v. Warden, 220 Md. 677 , 154 A. 2d 808 (effect of plea of guilty) ; Dorris v. Warden, 222 Md. 586 , 158 A. 2d 105 (right to seek a new trial or to appeal). We