KEENE v. WARDEN, 217 Md. 654 (1958)

141 A.2d 902

KEENE v. WARDEN OF MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION

[H.C. No. 123, September Term, 1957.]Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Decided May 27, 1958.

HABEAS CORPUS — Counsel — Denial of — Electing to Try Own Case. One who elects to try his own case when asked in the trial court if he has counsel is without standing to claim denial of counsel on habeas corpus. p. 655

Page 655

HABEAS CORPUS — Constitutional Rights, Denial of — Witnesses, Opportunity to Summon. A claim on habeas corpus that petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to summon witnesses, in the absence of a demand for compulsory process therefor, is not a denial of constitutional rights. p. 655

HABEAS CORPUS — Failure to Allow Cross-Examination — Conviction Without Evidence — Mere Statements as to. Mere statements (i) that the trial judge would not allow cross-examination, without more, and (ii) that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced without evidence, go to the regularity of the trial and to the sufficiency of the evidence, respectively, both of which are available on appeal, but not on habeas corpus. pp. 655-656

J.E.B.

Decided May 27, 1958.

Habeas corpus proceeding by Charles H.S. Keene 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 application for leave to appeal is denied with costs. Judge Mason properly ruled on the petition filed in the Baltimore City Court for a writ of habeas corpus that the petitioner, who elected to try his own case when he was asked in the trial court if he had counsel, is without standing to claim denial of counsel on habeas corpus. The judge also properly ruled that the petitioner’s claim that he was not afforded an opportunity to summon witnesses absent a demand for compulsory process therefor was not a denial of his constitutional rights. The mere statements (i) that the trial judge would not allow cross-examination, without more, and (ii) that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced without evidence, as Judge Mason pointed out, go to the regularity

Page 656

of the trial and to the sufficiency of the evidence, respectively, both of which are available on appeal, but not o habeas corpus.