SMITH v. WARDEN, 197 Md. 684 (1951)

80 A.2d 38

SMITH v. WARDEN OF MARYLAND PENITENTIARY

[H.C. No. 25, October Term, 1950.]Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Decided April 11, 1951.

HABEAS CORPUS — Failure to Advise of Right To Conduct Own Defense and Right of Appeal. Failure of the court to advise petitioner that he could conduct his own defense and of his right of appeal cannot be considered on habeas corpus. p. 685

Decided April 11, 1951.

Habeas corpus proceeding by Roma Smith against Warden of Maryland Penitentiary. From a refusal of the writ, petitioner applied for leave to appeal.

Application denied.

Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON and MARKELL, JJ.

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

This is an application for leave to appeal from denial of a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner is imprisoned under sentences aggregating fifty years and six months for robbery (two cases), robbery with a deadly weapon, and assault. He alleges that his constitutional rights were violated by failure of the court to appoint counsel

Page 685

for him at his trial. He not only could have made, but did make, this contention on appeal to this court through counsel appointed by the court for the purpose of appeal. The judgment was affirmed. Smith v. State, 180 Md. 529, 25 A.2d 681. If any other contentions now made, e.g., failure of the court to advise him (a) “that he could conduct his own case in his own defense” or (b) of “his right to appeal”, were not made on appeal, they could have been made then and cannot be heard o habeas corpus. Loughran v. Warden, 192 Md. 719, 64 A.2d 712. Indeed, these contentions seem self-contradictory.

Application denied, with costs.