Opinion
[H.C. No. 24, October Term, 1953.]
Decided February 10, 1954.
CRIMINAL LAW — Narcotics Prosecution — Failure of Indictment to Designate Joint Ownership of Narcotics. The fact that an indictment charging defendant with violating the narcotic laws of this State failed to designate "joint ownership" of the narcotics and incidental paraphernalia with another also charged with the same crime did not make the indictment illegal and invalid. p. 680
HABEAS CORPUS — Defects in Indictment Not Reviewable on. Defects in an indictment may be reviewed on appeal, or on motion for a new trial, but they cannot be reviewed in a habeas corpus proceeding. p. 680
J.E.B.
Decided February 10, 1954.
Habeas corpus proceeding by Charles J. Ahern against the Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary. From a refusal of the writ, petitioner applied for leave to appeal.
Application denied.
Before SOBELOFF, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and HAMMOND, JJ.
This is an application for leave to appeal from a denial of the writ of habeas corpus by Judge Herman M. Moser of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City.
The petitioner was tried and convicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore City on a charge of violating the narcotic laws of this State and received a sentence of two years in the Maryland House of Correction. The case was appealed to this Court and judgment was affirmed. See Clark et al. v. State, 202 Md. 133.
The petitioner complains that the indictment is illegal and invalid in that it failed to designate "joint ownership" of the narcotics and incidental paraphernalia with another also charged with the same crime. The same claim was made and held to be without merit in Peachie v. State, 203 Md. 239.
The petitioner has made a prior application for an appeal from a denial of the writ. See Ahern v. Warden, 203 Md. 672. In that application, he made the same contention as he now makes. Although the contention was not expressly answered or discussed in the former opinion, it is well settled that defects in an indictment may be reviewed on appeal or on motion for new trial but they cannot be reviewed in a habeas corpus proceeding. Strahl v. Warden, 202 Md. 655; Bergen v. Warden, 201 Md. 641; and Bowie v. Warden, 201 Md. 648.
Application denied, with costs.