131 A.2d 395
[H.C. No. 69, October Term, 1956.]Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Decided May 3, 1957.
HABEAS CORPUS — Lack of Due Process and Unfairness in Trial — Claim of, Primarily Based upon Alleged Mental and Physical Defects, Without Merit. Petitioner in this habeas corpus
proceeding, who was convicted of larceny of use of an automobile, alleged that he was 25 years old, physically handicapped, illiterate and had the mentality of a ten-year-old child; that he was unable to obtain a lawyer and was furnished none at the trial; that upon arraignment he said only that he was “guilty of riding in the car”, but that the trial court entered a plea of guilty upon the above charge; that petitioner was denied due process; and that an element of unfairness entered into his trial. The court below, after a full hearing, found that petitioner’s charges were completely unfounded; that he was a robust, alert individual with no apparent physical or mental defect and answered questions quickly and intelligently; and that any inconsistencies in his answers stemmed from a desire to fortify his contention that he was illiterate and suffered from physical defects. This Court indicated its accord with these findings and with the action of the court below in remanding petitioner to the custody of the proper authorities. pp. 633-634
J.E.B.
Decided May 3, 1957.
Habeas corpus proceeding by James Franklin Webster against the Warden of the Maryland House of Correction. From an order remanding petitioner to the custody of the
Page 633
Warden after a hearing as a result of the granting of such a writ, petitioner applied for leave to appeal.
Application denied, with costs.
Before BRUNE, C.J., and COLLINS, HENDERSON, HAMMOND and PRESCOTT, JJ.
PRESCOTT, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is the second application by the petitioner for the right to appeal to this Court. The first was an application to appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus; this is a request for the right to appeal from an order remanding him to the custody of the House of Correction after a hearing by Judge Byrnes as a result of the granting of such a writ. In his first application, the record disclosed that the trial Judge had not fully complied with the statute that requires a substantial but succinct statement by the Court setting forth the grounds of the application, the questions involved, and the reasons of the Court for the action taken. The petitioner alleged he was twenty-five years old, but physically handicapped; that he was illiterate, and had a mentality of a ten-year-old child; that he was unable to obtain a lawyer, and was furnished none at his trial before Judge Carter; that, upon arraignment, he only had said he was “guilty of riding in the car”, but the Court entered a plea of guilty upon the third count of an indictment that charged him with the larceny of the use of said automobile; that he was denied due process; and that an element of unfairness entered into his trial. Believing these allegations raised questions of constitutional rights that had not been resolved by the judge to whom the petition had been presented, we remanded the case for further proceedings. Webster v. Warden, 211 Md. 632, 126 A.2d 613.
Judge Byrnes granted a writ of habeas corpus, and gave the petitioner a full hearing, at which the petitioner was heard, and a transcript of the record taken at petitioner’s trial was introduced. After the hearing, the Judge filed a written opinion in which he stated that the “* * * charges made by Petitioner are completely unfounded. * * * The petitioner is a robust, alert individual with no apparent
Page 634
physical or mental defect. He answered questions quickly and intelligently. Any inconsistencies in his answers stem * * * from a desire to fortify his contention that he is illiterate and suffers from physical defects. * * *” After a careful reading of the record, we are in entire accord with Judge Byrnes’ findings.
Application denied, with costs.