White v. Warden

Per Curiam. The applicant, Leroy White, was found guilty of rape by Judge Herman M. Moser in the Criminal Court of Baltimore ⁶⁷² on June 11, 1952, and was sentenced to death. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, White v. State, 201 Md. 489 , and the death sentence was subsequently commuted to life imprisonment. The instant post conviction petition, the applicant’s first, was filed on October 3, 1966, and a hearing was held on December 22, 1966, before Chief Judge Dulany Foster.

In an order dated January 3, 1967, Judge Foster denied relief. He filed a supplemental memorandum on January 24, 1967. No formal application for leave to appeal has been filed, but the applicant did write a letter stating his desire to appeal and requesting the appointment of counsel for his appeal. Under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act, the applicant has no absolute right to counsel to assist him in filing an application for leave to appeal.

The applicant has not stated any reasons why the order below should be reversed or modified and the application can be denied because of that failure. Maryland Rule BK 46 b; Johnson v. Director, 243 Md. 708 ; Norris v. Warden, 1 Md. App. 69 and Dyson v. Warden, 1 Md. App. 469 . The contentions raised in the applicant’s petition may be stated as follows: 1. Petitioner was denied his constitutional rights because he was held for murder, robbery, and rape and was only convicted of rape. 2.

He was held incommunicado for six days and was constantly beaten by the police during these six days. 3. It was unconstitutional for the police to have waited six days from the time of arrest before bringing him before a magistrate. 4. Illegal arrest. 5. Illegal seizure of evidence that was introduced at his trial. 6.

The rape was not proven. 7. There was no confrontation of witnesses and petitioner was denied the presence of counsel at his preliminary hearing. 8. There exists an alibi witness. 9. Incompetency of counsel based on failure to call alleged alibi witness and inadequate consultation and preparation. ⁶⁷³ The first contention was conceded to be without merit by the applicant’s court-appointed counsel.

The second contention was properly denied by Judge Foster on the basis that this issue had been finally litigated against the applicant by the Court of Appeals in its decision affirming his conviction, White v. State, supra. The third contention may be denied for the same reason. See Wells v. Warden, 244 Md. 722 ; Baldwin v. Warden, 243 Md. 326 ; Bagley v. Warden, 1 Md. App. 154 . Applicant’s fourth contention claiming illegal arrest, standing alone, is not a ground for relief under the Act, and his fifth contention was