Opinion
[H.C. No. 91, September Term, 1957.]
Decided March 4, 1958.
HABEAS CORPUS — Trial on Police Department Complaint — Allegation Refuted, Where Petitioner Was Indicted. Despite an allegation on habeas corpus that petitioner was tried under a police department complaint, he admitted that the indictment was read to him prior to his trial, and the docket entries showed that he received a copy of it, so that there was no merit to the contention. The docket entries also showed that he was represented by counsel, pleaded not guilty when arraigned and he was found guilty. p. 600
HABEAS CORPUS — Witness — Refusal of Counsel to Summon. Petitioner was not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus upon the ground that his counsel refused to summon a witness at his trial on criminal charges, where he did not state that he complained of this to the trial judge. p. 600
HABEAS CORPUS — Constitutional Guarantees — Bald Allegation of Denial of, Not Enough. A bald allegation that one has been denied constitutional guarantees, without setting forth facts substantiating the same, cannot constitute the basis for issuing a writ of habeas corpus. p. 600
HABEAS CORPUS — Evidence — Sufficiency of. An attack on the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction is not available in habeas corpus proceedings. p. 600
J.E.B.
Decided March 4, 1958.
Habeas corpus proceeding by Frank Savage against the Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary. From a refusal of the writ, petitioner applied for leave to appeal.
Application denied, with costs.
Before BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
Judge Smith, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, denied, on October 16, 1957, the application of Frank Savage for a writ of habeas corpus.
The petitioner was convicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore on August 13, 1956, on charges of burglary, being a rogue and vagabond and stealing $195.00, and sentenced to five years in the Maryland Penitentiary.
He alleges in his petition: (1) that he was not given a fair and impartial trial; (2) that due process of law was not given him; and (3) that he was not given "advantage of witness for him." In support of these general statements, he alleges he was tried under a police department complaint, that his attorney refused to summon a newspaper reporter, and that the testimony of the State's witness was inconsistent, contradictory, and perjured.
Despite the allegation that he was tried under the police department complaint, the petitioner admits the indictment was read to him prior to his trial, and further, the docket entries show he received a copy of it. The docket entries also show that he was represented by counsel and, when arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and that he was found guilty.
He also complains that his counsel refused to summon a witness. However, he fails to state that he complained of this fact to the trial judge. Smith v. Warden, 213 Md. 643, 644.
Of course, the bald allegation that one has been denied constitutional guarantees, without setting forth facts substantiating the same, cannot constitute the basis for issuing a writ of habeas corpus. Lucas v. Warden, 209 Md. 645, 647. Likewise, his attack on the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction is not available in habeas corpus proceedings. Hicks v. Warden, 213 Md. 625.
Application denied, with costs.