HICKMAN v. WARDEN, 203 Md. 668 (1953)

99 A.2d 730

HICKMAN v. WARDEN OF MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION

[H.C. No. 17, October Term, 1953.]Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Decided November 5, 1953.

HABEAS CORPUS — Preliminary Hearing — Lack of. Failure to hold a preliminary hearing does not vitiate a criminal trial and cannot be raised on habeas corpus. p. 669

HABEAS CORPUS — Extradition Unlawful. An unlawful extradition does not vitiate a criminal trial and cannot be raised on habeas corpus. p. 669

HABEAS CORPUS — Bail Excessive. Excessive bail cannot be raised on habeas corpus. p. 669

HABEAS CORPUS — Guilt or Innocence. The question of guilt or innocence cannot be re-tried on habeas corpus. p. 669

HABEAS CORPUS — Witnesses — Denial of Confrontation by. Denial of the right to confrontation by witnesses goes only to the regularity of the proceedings, not to jurisdiction of the court, and cannot be raised on habeas corpus. p. 669

HABEAS CORPUS — Unlawful Publicity. Prejudice by “unlawful publicity” cannot be raised on habeas corpus. p. 669

HABEAS CORPUS — Constitutional Rights — Denial of. Where petitioner for leave to appeal from a denial of a writ of habeas corpus sets forth no facts showing how his constitutional rights have been denied, his petition was denied. p. 670

Decided November 5, 1953.

Habeas corpus proceeding by John Peter Hickman against Warden of Maryland House of Correction. From a refusal of the writ, petitioner applied for leave to appeal.

Application denied.

Page 669

Before SOBELOFF, C.J., DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and HAMMOND, JJ.

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

This is an application by John Peter Hickman for leave to appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus by Judge Patrick M. Schnauffer, of the Circuit Court for Frederick County.

Petitioner was tried for burglary and convicted on May 15, 1953, in the Criminal Court of Baltimore City and sentenced to a term of six years in the Maryland House of Correction. He gives many reasons why the writ should be granted. He claims that he was deprived a preliminary hearing. Failure to hold a preliminary hearing does not vitiate a criminal trial and cannot be raised o habeas corpus. Sykes v. Warden, 201 Md. 662, 93 A.2d 549. He claims that he was unlawfully extradited. This does not vitiate a trial and therefore cannot be raised on habeas corpus. He contends that excessive bail was imposed. This cannot be raised on habeas corpus. Daisey v. Supt., 203 Md. 653, 98 A.2d 99, He further contends that false charges and accusations were made against him; that he was convicted without evidence; and that the police neglected to employ scientific methods suggested by him to prove his innocence. These all involve the question of guilt or innocence which may not be re-tried on habeas corpus. DeLisle v. Warden, 203 Md. 649, 98 A.2d 14, and cases there cited.

Petitioner alleges that he was denied the right to be confronted by witnesses. This goes only to the regularity of the proceedings and not to the jurisdiction of the court and therefore cannot be raised on habeas corpus. Bowen v. Warden, 202 Md. 646, 96 A.2d 489; Sykes v. Warden, 201 Md. 662, 93 A.2d 519.

Petitioner also contends that he was prejudiced by “unlawful publicity”. He does not state just what this publicity was and as to how it affected the trial of his case. This can be raised on appeal but not by a writ of habeas corpus.

Page 670

Petitioner also alleges that he was denied his constitutional rights. Other than as hereinbefore stated, he sets out no facts showing how his rights were denied. The following was said by this Court in Peoples v. Warden, 198 Md. 688, 84 A.2d 695: “He refers to various provisions of the Declaration of Rights and alleges that his rights were violated. No copy of the commitment or any docket entries, rulings or proceedings at the trial or relating to the charge, trial or sentence and no facts or circumstances showing any violation of fundamental or other rights are set out in or filed with the petition or contained in any supporting affidavit.”

Application denied, with costs.

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle
Tags: 99 A.2d 730

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