Opinion
[P.C. No. 69, September Term, 1959.]
Decided February 23, 1960.
CRIMINAL LAW — Suppliers Of Information To Police — Ordinarily No Right To Confront — Point Cannot Be Raised Collaterally — Post Conviction Case. Assuming that a claim that the petitioner in this post conviction proceeding was not permitted to confront an anonymous informer went to confrontation at the trial rather than prior to it, there is no right to confront those who supply information to the police concerning a violation of the law, except in circumstances not relevant here, and, in any event, the Court held, the point could not be raised in collateral proceedings. p. 590
POST CONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT — Presence Of Petitioner Not Required At Hearing Under. The presence of the petitioner is not required at the hearing on his petition for relief under the Post Conviction Procedure Act. p. 590
J.E.B.
Decided February 23, 1960.
Daniel Harvey Deal instituted a proceeding under the Post Conviction Procedure Act, and from a denial of relief, he applied for leave to appeal.
Reporter's Note: Certiorari denied, 362 U.S. 991.
Before BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
Applicant appeals from the dismissal by the Circuit Court for Prince George's County of his petition for relief under the Post Conviction Procedure Act, Code (1959 Supp.), Art. 27, Secs. 645A et seq. All but one of the applicant's contentions were dealt with by the lower court, and as to those contentions we adopt its opinion. Applicant complained that his constitutional rights were denied because he was not permitted to confront the anonymous informer who told the police he was involved in the robbery. Assuming this claim goes to confrontation at the trial rather than prior to it, we have previously held that there is no right to confront those who supply information to the police concerning a violation of the law, except in circumstances not relevant here. McCoy v. State, 216 Md. 332, 140 A.2d 689. In any event this point cannot be raised in collateral proceedings. Howell v. Warden, 216 Md. 611, 139 A.2d 270; Shockley v. Warden, 216 Md. 607, 139 A.2d 264; Kirby v. Warden, 214 Md. 600, 133 A.2d 421.
Applicant alleges he was denied a fair post conviction hearing because he was not present. His presence was not, however, required. Plump v. Warden, 220 Md. 662, 153 A.2d 269; Shifflett v. Warden, 220 Md. 667, 155 A.2d 68.
For the above reasons the application for leave to appeal is denied.
Application denied.