CHASE v. WARDEN, 216 Md. 627 (1958)

139 A.2d 508

CHASE v. WARDEN OF MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION

[H.C. No. 98, September Term, 1957.]Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Decided March 21, 1958.

CRIMINAL LAW — Revocation of Parole for Violation — Failure to Credit Petitioner with Time Spent on, Discretionary with Board, and Deprives Him of No Constitutional Rights. Whether a person returned to custody for violation of parole is to receive credit on his original sentence for time spent by him on parole is a matter resting in the discretion of the Board of Parole and Probation. Code (1957), Art. 41, § 115. A failure of the Board to exercise its discretion so as to grant such credit does not deprive petitioner of any constitutional rights, even assuming, without deciding, that such a question could be raised on habeas corpus. pp. 627-628

J.E.B.

Decided March 21, 1958.

Habeas corpus proceeding by Edgar A. Chase against the Warden of the Maryland House of Correction. 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.

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner’s sole contention in this application for leave to appeal from the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus is that he is entitled to have time spent by him on parole credited to his original sentence. Whether a person returned to custody for violation of parole is to receive such credit is a matter resting in the discretion of the Board of Parole and Probation. Article 41, § 115, Code (1957). A failure of the Board to exercise its discretion so as to grant credit does not deprive the petitioner of any constitutional

Page 628

right, even if we assume, without deciding, that such a question could be raised on habeas corpus. Clark v. Warden, 213 Md. 641, 642.

Application denied, with costs.