LEWANDOWSKI v. WARDEN, 223 Md. 644 (1960)

162 A.2d 285

LEWANDOWSKI v. WARDEN OF MARYLAND PENITENTIARY

[P.C. No. 106, September Term, 1959.]Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Decided July 5, 1960.

POST CONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT — Evidence, Admissibility And Sufficiency Of — Fair And Impartial Trial, Denial Of — Separate Verdicts On Each Count Rather Than General Verdict — Sentence Too Severe And Therefore Illegal — All Claims As To, Without Merit. pp. 644-645

POST CONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT — Motion Filed In Appellate Court To Amend Original Petition So As To Allege Additional Ground Not Properly Before Court. A motion filed in the Court of Appeals for leave to amend an original petition, so as to allege also that the sentence imposed exceeded the maximum fixed by law, was not properly before the Court on an application for leave to appeal from the denial of post conviction relief. p. 645

J.E.B.

Decided July 5, 1960.

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

Application denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an application for leave to appeal from the denial of post conviction relief.

On March 16, 1959, the applicant was convicted of forgery and was sentenced to seven years in the Maryland Penitentiary. On April 21, 1959, he filed a petition for post conviction relief alleging, in addition to a series of claims relating to the admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence, that he was

Page 645

denied a fair and impartial trial because the trial judge had knowledge of his prior record, that there should have been separate verdicts on each of the counts in the indictment rather than a general verdict and that the sentence was too severe and for that reason illegal. All are without merit, and the application for leave to appeal is denied for the reasons set forth in detail in the well-considered memorandum opinion of Judge Manley dated December 30, 1959, and a supplemental opinion dated January 8, 1960.

The applicant’s motion filed in this Court on March 14, 1960, for leave to amend his original petition so as to also allege that the sentence exceeded the maximum fixed by law is not properly before us.

Application denied.