Opinion
[App. No. 3, September Term, 1966.]
Decided November 15, 1966.
POST CONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT — Alleged Refusal Of Petitioner's Repeated Requests To See Counsel When He Was First Questioned By Police — No Evidence Offered To Support Claim — Bald, Unsupported Allegation Does Not Constitute Ground For Post Conviction Relief — Constitutional Principles Expounded For First Time In Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, Need Not Be Applied Retroactively To Cases, Such As One At Bar, Which Were Begun Before The Decision Was Rendered. pp. 695-696
Decided November 15, 1966.
Application for leave to appeal from the Criminal Court of Baltimore (BYRNES, J.).
Collin Linwood Johnson instituted a proceeding under the Post Conviction Procedure Act, and from a denial of relief, he applied for leave to appeal.
Application denied.
Before HAMMOND, C.J., and HORNEY, MARBURY, BARNES and McWILLIAMS, JJ.
The petitioner was one of three persons convicted of a series of armed robberies in the Criminal Court of Baltimore (Joseph L. Carter, J., without a jury) on 12 August 1963. He was sentenced to a total of 40 years in the Maryland Penitentiary and the judgment and sentence were affirmed by this Court in Johnson v. State, 237 Md. 283, 206 A.2d 138 (1965). A subsequent application for relief under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act was denied by Byrnes, J.
This application for leave to appeal will be denied for the reasons set forth by Judge Byrnes in his memorandum opinion, which dealt with all of petitioner's contentions except one raised after this application was filed. With respect to that one, the alleged refusal of petitioner's repeated requests to see counsel at the time he was first questioned by police, no evidence is offered to support it and a bald, unsupported allegation does not constitute a ground for post conviction relief. Austin v. Director, 237 Md. 314, 206 A.2d 145 (1965). Moreover, while petitioner now relies on Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (June, 1964), the Supreme Court in Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 (June, 1966), held that the constitutional principles expounded for the first time in Escobedo need not be applied retroactively in cases which, like petitioner's, were begun before that decision was handed down.
Application denied.