CULLEY v. WARDEN, 220 Md. 687 (1959)

154 A.2d 813

CULLEY v. WARDEN OF MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION

[P.C. No. 34, September Term, 1959.]Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Decided October 22, 1959.

POST CONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT — Contention Not Raised Below Not Considered on Application for Leave to Appeal. A contention which was not raised below in a post conviction proceeding cannot be considered on an application for leave to appeal. p. 688

POST CONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT — Alleged Failure to Warn of Consequences of Guilty Plea — Alleged Untruth by Prosecuting Attorney. The following claims were held not to entitle the petitioner to any relief in a post conviction proceeding: (1) that the trial court allegedly failed to warn him of the consequences of a plea of guilty; and (2) an allegation that the prosecuting attorney had knowingly told an untruth in the presence of the

Page 688

petitioner while stating the facts to the court after entry of the guilty plea. p. 688

J.E.B.

Decided October 22, 1959.

Samuel L. Culley instituted a proceeding under the Post Conviction Procedure Act, and from a denial of relief, he applied for leave to appeal.

Application denied.[1]

[1] Reporter’s Note: Certiorari denied, 361 U.S. 918.

Before BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In his petition for post conviction relief the petitioner assigned nine reasons for the relief sought, many of which had been previously disposed of in Culley v. Warden, 218 Md. 639, 145 A.2d 226 (1958). However, on this application for leave to appeal he abandoned all of his prior contentions except three, but asserted a fourth one — plea of guilty was entered without consent of petitioner — which was not raised below and cannot be considered here. One of the contentions — the incompetence of counsel — as the lower court properly observed was disposed of i Culley v. Warden, 217 Md. 660, 143 A.2d 61 (1958). With respect to the other two contentions — failure of the trial court to warn petitioner of the consequences of a plea of guilty [Tillett v. Warden, 220 Md. 677, 154 A.2d 808] and that the prosecuting attorney had knowingly told an untruth in the presence of the petitioner while stating the facts to the court after entry of the plea of guilty — the lower court found nothing in either to entitle the petitioner to any relief. We agree.

Application denied.

Page 689

jdjungle