BRENNAN v. WARDEN, 197 Md. 691 (1951)

80 A.2d 9

BRENNAN v. WARDEN OF MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION

[H.C. No. 30, October Term, 1950.]Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Decided April 11, 1951.

HABEAS CORPUS — Consecutive Sentences. Where petitioner has not served the full terms of the first of two sentences, which he contends run concurrently and not consecutively with two later sentences, he is lawfully imprisoned and not entitled to release on habeas corpus. p. 692

Decided April 11, 1951.

Habeas corpus proceeding by Donald L. Brennan against Warden of Maryland House of Correction. From a refusal of the writ, petitioner applied for leave to appeal.

Application denied.

Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON and MARKELL, JJ.

DELAPLAINE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Donald L. Brennan, a prisoner in the Maryland House of Correction, has applied here for leave to appeal from refusal of a writ of habeas corpus.

Petitioner alleges that on July 13, 1950, he was found guilty by a trial magistrate for Prince George’s County

Page 692

on two criminal charges and was sentenced to the House of Correction for six months on one charge and three months on the other, the sentences to run consecutively; and that on September 11, 1950, he was found guilty by the same trial magistrate on two other charges, and was sentenced to the House of Correction for six months on one charge and three months on the other, the sentences to run consecutively.

Petitioner contends that the trial magistrate had no right to make the sentences run consecutively. As Judge Tucker, who refused to issue the writ, pointed out, even if it be assumed that the two former sentences run concurrently with the latter two, nevertheless the latter two will not terminate until nine months after the beginning of the imprisonment in September, 1950, i.e., in June, 1951.

As petitioner has not shown that he is illegally imprisoned, his application must be denied.

Application denied, with costs.

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle
Tags: 80 A.2d 9

Recent Posts

NOTTINGHAM v. STATE, 135 A.3d 541 (2016)

135 A.3d 541 (2016)227 Md.App. 592 George Doran NOTTINGHAM v. STATE of Maryland. No. 1602,…

4 weeks ago

STATE v. SAYLES, 244 A.3d 1139 (Md. App. 2021)

244 A.3d 1139 (2021)472 Md. 207 STATE of Maryland v. Karon SAYLES. State of Maryland…

2 years ago

MILBURN v. STATE, 1 Md. 1 (1851)

Alexander Milburn and his Securities, vs. The State of Maryland. Dec. 1851 · Court of Appeals of…

3 years ago

HANDY v. COLLINS, 60 Md. 229 (1883)

John H. Handy vs. Frances C. Collins, Executrix of William H. Collins June 19, 1883 · Court…

3 years ago

CLOUGH v. MAYOR & COUNCIL OF HURLOCK, 445 A.3d 554 (2015)

127 A.3d 554 (2015)445 Md. 364 Kathleen CLOUGH v. MAYOR & COUNCIL OF HURLOCK. No.…

5 years ago

STOP SLOTS MD 2008 v. STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, 34 A.3d 1164 (2012)

34 A.3d 1164 (2012)424 Md. 163 STOP SLOTS MD 2008, et al. v. STATE BOARD…

7 years ago