Opinion
[App. No. 22, September Term, 1961.]
Decided October 24, 1961. Certiorari denied, 368 U.S. 1001.
POST CONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT — Second Petition For Relief — No Grounds Stated Which Could Not Have Been Raised In Original Or Amended Petition, Or Properly Presented On First Application For Leave To Appeal — Claim That Counsel Failed To Amend First Petition In Accordance With Request Was Available On First Application For Leave To Appeal — Application For Leave To Appeal In Second Case Denied. pp. 674-675
J.E.B.
Decided October 24, 1961.
Earl Henson instituted a proceeding under the Post Conviction Procedure Act, and from a denial of relief, he applied for leave to appeal.
Application denied.
Before BRUNE, C.J., and PRESCOTT, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.
This is a request by the petitioner for leave to appeal from his second application for relief under the P.C.P.A. His request for leave to appeal from his first application was denied in Henson v. Warden, 223 Md. 674, 164 A.2d 273, cert. denied 364 U.S. 938, wherein we stated when, where, and of what offense he was convicted, and why his contentions raised at that time were unsound.
Although his application states a number of purported grounds for relief, (most of them having been raised and answered in his first petition) none of them is of such a nature that it could not have been raised in the original or amended petition, Code (1960 Supp.), Article 27, § 645 H, or properly presented in his first application asking leave to appeal. Cf. Fidelity-Baltimore Nat'l Bank Tr. Co. v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 217 Md. 367, 142 A.2d 796, it being obvious that his allegation in the application that his counsel failed to amend his first application in accordance with his request was available on his first application for leave to appeal. Therefore, for the reasons set forth in Judge Harlan's opinion below and this opinion, the application will be denied.
Application denied.