Opinion
[H.C. No. 3, October Term, 1954.]
Decided November 11, 1954.
APPEAL — from Order Denying Certiorari to Review Conviction on Larceny Charge in Court of Concurrent Jurisdiction — Dismissed. Where the Baltimore City Court entered an order denying a petition for a writ of certiorari to review petitioner's conviction and sentence on a charge of larceny in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, an appeal from the order was dismissed, for the reason that the action of the trial court, under the circumstances, was not reviewable. The petition alleged no lack of jurisdiction in the Circuit Court, and, in any event, the Baltimore City Court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to review a decision of a court of concurrent jurisdiction in another judicial circuit. p. 634
HABEAS CORPUS — Treating Petition for Writ of Certiorari as Petition for Writ of — No Adequate Grounds for Relief Stated. A petition for a writ of certiorari to review petitioner's conviction and sentence on a charge of larceny, even treating the petition as though it had been for a writ of habeas corpus, stated no adequate grounds for relief, since the only grounds alleged were (1) lack of evidence to convict (which could not be considered on habeas corpus), and (2) denial of due process (which, in the absence of any particularization, was too general to be considered). pp. 634-635
J.E.B.
Decided November 11, 1954.
Petition in the Baltimore City Court by James A. Williams for a writ of certiorari to review petitioner's conviction and sentence on a charge of larceny in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. From an order denying the petition, petitioner appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
Before BRUNE, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and HAMMOND, JJ.
This is an appeal from an order of the Baltimore City Court filed May 26, 1954, denying a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the petitioner's conviction and sentence on a charge of larceny in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. The petition did not allege any lack of jurisdiction in the Circuit Court, and even if it had, the Baltimore City Court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to review a decision of a court of concurrent jurisdiction in another judicial circuit. In any event, it is clear that the action of the trial court, under the circumstances, is not reviewable. Cf. Riggs v. Green, 118 Md. 218, and Turnpike Co. v. N.C.R.R. Co., 15 Md. 193. See also Moore v. License Com. of Pr. Geo.'s Co., 203 Md. 502. The appeal must be dismissed.
It may be noted that the appeal in this case was docketed as though it were an application for leave to appeal from a denial of a writ of habeas corpus, and the appellant has filed a brief in this Court seeking a review of the order of May 26, 1954, "denying appellant's application to be heard on habeas corpus proceedings". If we treat the case as though the petition below had been for a writ of habeas corpus, it is sufficient to say that it states no adequate grounds for relief, since the only grounds alleged are (1) lack of evidence to convict, which cannot be considered on habeas corpus, and (2) denial of due process, which, in the absence of any particularization, is too general to be considered. Hickman v. Warden, 203 Md. 668.
Appeal dismissed, with costs.