Walls v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

Hammond, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This petition for post conviction relief presents four contentions, all of which were considered by Judge Harris at a hearing where petitioner testified and called various witnesses. From denial of relief, petitioner seeks leave to appeal. He contends : 1.

He was without counsel during his arrest and detention. There is, as yet, no constitutional requirement that a lawyer be furnished a person suspected of crime at the time of his arrest. Judge Harris found that petitioner did not make any statement to the police and did not request an attorney during his. detention following arrest. These facts are far removed from the-circumstances in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 , 12 L. Ed. 2d 977 , and even if there were factual similarities, it has been held that Bscobedo does not apply retrospectively, Hyde v. State, 240 Md. 661 , and petitioner’s conviction became final with the decision of his appeal in 1958, Walls v. State, 220 Md. 115 .

Since petitioner pleaded not guilty at the preliminary hearing, that stage in the proceedings was not critical to him and the right to counsel did not attach. Evans v. Warden, 240 Md. 333 . 2. The police performed acts of brutality thereby inducing-petitioner to enter a guilty plea at his preliminary hearing and such plea was introduced at the trial. Judge Harris determined that the allegation pertaining to the guilty plea was not true- and he further found that the evidence produced at the hearing, did not substantiate the accusation of police brutality. ⁴⁰⁴ 3.

His conviction was based on perjured testimony which was known to the police to be false. Judge Harris found that no credible evidence was