Opinion
[H.C. No. 77, October Term, 1956.]
Decided May 3, 1957.
CRIMINAL LAW — Revocation of Parole for Violation — Failure to Credit Petitioner with Time Spent on, Deprives Him of No Constitutional Right. A failure of the Board of Parole and Probation to exercise its discretion so as to grant credit for time spent on parole does not deprive a petitioner returned to prison for violation of parole of any constitutional right, even assuming, without deciding, that the point could be raised in this habeas corpus proceeding. Code (1956 Supp.), Art. 41, sec. 91H. pp. 641-642
J.E.B.
Decided May 3, 1957.
Habeas corpus proceeding by Charles D. Clark, Sr., against the Warden of the Maryland House of Correction. From a refusal of the writ, petitioner applied for leave to appeal.
Application denied, with costs.
Before BRUNE, C.J., and COLLINS, HENDERSON, HAMMOND and PRESCOTT, JJ.
This is an application for leave to appeal from a denial of a writ of habeas corpus. The applicant was convicted of a violation of the narcotics law and sentenced to three years in the House of Correction. He was released on parole to live in New York and be under the supervision of the New York State Parole Department. However, he violated his parole and was returned to the Maryland House of Correction. After a hearing his parole was revoked. He complains that no credit has been given for the time spent on parole. It is perfectly clear that he is not entitled to credit under the circumstances. Code (1956 Supp.), Art. 41, § 91H; Forrester v. Warden, 207 Md. 622. "A failure of the Board [of Parole and Probation] to exercise its discretion so as to grant credit does not deprive the petitioner of any constitutional right, even if we assume, without deciding, that such a point could be raised on habeas corpus." Williams v. Warden, 209 Md. 627, 628.
Application denied, with costs.