Opinion
[App. No. 62, September Term, 1965.]
Decided January 12, 1966.
POST CONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT — Contention Of Denial Of Constitutional Rights — Relief Properly Denied Where There Was Mere Bald Allegation Of Denial Of Rights. p. 177
POST CONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT — Contention Of Lack Of Counsel At Preliminary Hearing — Relief Denied Because Petitioner Entered Plea Of Not Guilty At That Hearing. p. 178
POST CONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT — Allegation Of Illegal Arrest — No Allegation Was Made That "Fruits" Of Such Arrest Were Used Against Petitioner — Illegal Arrest Alone Does Not Invalidate Conviction — Moreover, This Contention Was Not Raised In Trial Court Nor On Direct Appeal. p. 178
POST CONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT — Contention That "Conflicting" Testimony Was Given By State's Witnesses At Trial Amounted To Attack On Weight Of Evidence Which Is Not A Ground For Relief — Even If Testimony Were Perjured It Would Not Invalidate Conviction Absent Knowledge Thereof On Part Of Prosecution. p. 178
S.K.S.
Decided January 12, 1966.
Application for leave to appeal from the Criminal Court of Baltimore (CARDIN, J.).
Joseph Ellis instituted a proceeding under the Post Conviction Procedure Act, and from a denial of relief, he applied for leave to appeal.
Application denied.
Before PRESCOTT, C.J., and HAMMOND, MARBURY, OPPENHEIMER and McWILLIAMS, JJ.
In his application for leave to appeal, petitioner states four grounds for relief: (1) that his constitutional rights were violated; (2) that he did not have counsel at his preliminary hearing (at which time he entered, or had entered on his behalf, a plea of not guilty); (3) that he was illegally arrested; and, (4) that conflicting statements were made by the State's witnesses.
The court below (Judge Cardin) denied relief on the first ground raised by petitioner, because it was a mere bald allegation of a denial of constitutional rights. Matthews v. Warden, 223 Md. 649.
On the second point, relief was denied because petitioner entered a plea of not guilty at his preliminary hearing. Arrington v. Warden, 232 Md. 672.
We think Judge Cardin adequately disposed of contentions 1 and 2.
In regard to contention 3, the petitioner makes no allegation that any "fruits" of an illegal arrest were offered against him at his trial. Of course, an illegal arrest of an accused, standing alone, does not invalidate a subsequent conviction. Ledbetter v. Warden, 234 Md. 643. Moreover, the contention of an alleged illegal arrest was not raised in the trial court nor on his direct appeal. Code (1957), Article 27, Sections 645A-645J.
Petitioner's fourth contention that "conflicting" testimony was offered at his trial is nothing more than a vague and indefinite generality, and, at most, amounts to nothing more than an attack on the weight of the State's evidence, which is not a ground for post conviction relief. Duff v. Warden, 234 Md. 646. (Even if the challenged testimony were alleged to be perjured, it would not invalidate a conviction in the absence of knowledge thereof on the part of the prosecution.)
Application denied.