Washburn v. Sheriff

Orth, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. OAKLEY CHAFFIN WASHBURN, Jr. applies for leave to appeal from the refusal of Wise, J., presiding in the Circuit Court for Cecil County, to issue a writ of habeas corpus for relief from the trial court’s refusal.to admit him to bail after his conviction of criminal offenses. Code, Art. 42, § 20; Maryland Rule 777 b. The application alleges that Washburn is now confined in the Maryland Penitentiary as a result of his convictions under counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 10 of indictment 2733 and counts 1 and 2 of indictments 2735-2738. 1 It appears that a direct appeal to this Court was noted from the judgments entered and is now being perfected.

The order of Judge Wise, entered 20 December 1972, simply stated that the petition for issuance of the writ of habeas corpus “is denied as moot.” If Washburn is confined as he alleges, and there is nothing before us to indicate that he is not, we are at a loss to understand why the petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is moot. Rule 777 b flatly provides: “After conviction, pending sentence or appeal, an accused may be admitted to bail in the discretion of the trial court.” It is pellucidly clear that habeas corpus is a means of seeking relief from the refusal of a judge to admit a person to bail or from the judge’s determination requiring an allegedly excessive bail. See Code, Art. 42, § 20; Maryland Rules of Procedure, Chapter 1100, subtitle Z, Habeas Corpus; Simmons v. Warden, 16 Md. App. 449 ; McLaughlin v. Warden, 16 Md. App. 451 ; Long v. State, ⁶¹³ 16 Md. App. 371 ; Bigley and Fleming v. Warden, 16 Md.