PRICE v. WARDEN, 215 Md. 657 (1958)

139 A.2d 251

PRICE v. WARDEN OF MARYLAND PENITENTIARY

[H.C. No. 88, September Term, 1957.]Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Decided March 3, 1958.

HABEAS CORPUS — Evidence — Sufficiency of — Hearsay Testimony. Claims that the evidence before the court did not justify a conviction for the crime charged in the indictment, and that petitioner was convicted on hearsay testimony, relate to the sufficiency of the evidence, and may not be raised on habeas corpus. p. 658

SEARCHES AND SEIZURES — Narcotic Prosecutions — Statute Makes Bouse Act Specifically Inapplicable to. The Bouse Act, Code (1951, 1957 Supp.), Art. 35, § 5, governing prosecutions for misdemeanors, and making evidence resulting from an illegal search and seizure inadmissible, is specifically made inapplicable to prosecutions relating to narcotic drugs under Code (1951), Art. 27, § 368. p. 658

HABEAS CORPUS — Search and Seizure — Legality of. The legality of a search and seizure may not be raised on habeas corpus. p. 658

HABEAS CORPUS — Accomplice — Corroborating Testimony of. The sufficiency of the corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice can be raised on appeal, but not on habeas corpus. p. 658

HABEAS CORPUS — Counsel — Denial of Right to Consult, Following Arrest. A complaint that petitioner was denied the right to consult counsel, following his arrest, may be raised on appeal, but not on habeas corpus. p. 659

J.E.B.

Decided March 3, 1958.

Habeas corpus proceeding by James Edward Price against

Page 658

the Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary. 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.

BRUNE, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an application for leave to appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County (Raine, J.).

Applicant was convicted, as a second offender, of violation of the narcotics laws on February 10, 1956, in the Criminal Court of Baltimore (Carter, J.) and was sentenced to a term of ten years in the Maryland Penitentiary. He urges as the basis for leave to appeal the grounds stated below:

First, he contends that the evidence before the court did not justify a conviction for the crime charged in the indictment, and that he was convicted on hearsay testimony. These objections relate to the sufficiency of the evidence, and we have often held that they may not be raised on habeas corpus. Hopkins v. Warden, 213 Md. 634, 131 A.2d 393; Cunningham v. Warden, 213 Md. 642, 131 A.2d 394.

Second, he states that his conviction was based on evidence illegally obtained by the State without a search warrant. Under the provisions of Section 368, Article 27 (Code 1951), relating to prosecutions for narcotics violations, it is specifically provided that the Bouse Act (Article 35, § 5, Code 1951 and 1957 Supp.) relating to illegal searches and seizures, shall not apply. Furthermore, this Court has on numerous occasions held that the legality of searches and seizures may not be raised o habeas corpus. Shivers v. Warden, 211 Md. 612, 125 A.2d 671 Meleganich v. Warden, 213 Md. 648, 132 A.2d 130.

Third, he asserts that he was improperly convicted by the uncorroborated testimony of accomplices to the crime. However, it is established that the sufficiency of the corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice can be raised on appeal, but not o habeas corpus. Barker v. Warden, 208 Md. 662, 666, 119 A.2d 710.

Page 659

Fourth, he contends that he was denied the right to consult counsel following his arrest. This objection also may be raised on appeal, but not on habeas corpus. Roberts v. Warden, 211 Md. 639, 126 A.2d 857; Hopkins v. Warden, supra.

Application denied, with costs.