RICE v. WARDEN, 221 Md. 604 (1959)

156 A.2d 632

RICE v. WARDEN OF MARYLAND PENITENTIARY

[P.C. No. 48, September Term, 1959.]Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Decided December 21, 1959.

POST CONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT — Is Procedural — Does Not Enlarge Substantive Rights Of Review. The Post Conviction Procedure Act is a procedural act, and not an enlargement of substantive rights of review. p. 605

POST CONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT — Search And Seizure — Legality Of. Whether a search and seizure was legal cannot be raised under the Post Conviction Procedure Act. p. 605

POST CONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT — Preliminary Proceedings — Alleged Irregularities In — Bail. After conviction a question of bail may not be raised on habeas corpus; nor may alleged irregularities in preliminary proceedings or procedures which may not be raised on habeas corpus be reviewed under the Post Conviction Procedure Act. p. 605

J.E.B.

Decided December 21, 1959.

Philip Raymond Rice 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.

Page 605

PER CURIAM.

The Post Conviction Procedure Act is a procedural act and not an enlargement of substantive rights of review. State v. D’Onofrio, 221 Md. 20, 155 A.2d 643. The question of the legality of search and seizure cannot be raised under the Act Banks v. Warden, 220 Md. 652, 151 A.2d 897; Mears v. Warden, 220 Md. 682, 155 A.2d 72. After conviction a question of bail may not be raised on habeas corpus, Brooks v. Warden, 218 Md. 650, 145 A.2d 569; nor may alleged irregularities in preliminary proceedings or procedures which may not be raised on habeas corpus be reviewed under the Post Conviction Procedure Act. For the above reasons, and for the reasons stated in the opinion and order of Judge Manley filed in this case in the Criminal Court of Baltimore on July 16, 1959, the application of Philip Raymond Rice for leave to appeal is denied.