Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Ellinger v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary
Citations: 167 A.2d 334; 224 Md. 648; 1961 Md. LEXIS 544Docket: [App. No. 40, September Term, 1960.]
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland; January 18, 1961; Maryland; State Supreme Court
Raymond Ellinger's second application for leave to appeal the denial of relief under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act (UPCPA) was reviewed by the Court of Appeals of Maryland. In his first application, he argued that three of his grounds for relief were not ruled upon and claimed he was denied access to the transcript of his post conviction hearing. The court determined that the sixth ground was too vague for relief, but the first and fifth grounds warranted further inquiry regarding the State's alleged use of perjured testimony. The case was remanded for additional proceedings, during which the trial court provided a memorandum detailing Ellinger's testimony about the alleged perjury. Upon receiving the transcript after filing his brief, Ellinger was allowed to submit an additional brief. The trial court concluded that Ellinger had abandoned his claim of perjured testimony during the hearing and noted that he admitted to participating in the armed robbery, contradicting his defense. Ellinger argued that the filling station operator's identification was unreliable due to previous failures to identify him in police line-ups; however, the court found this argument insufficient to prove that perjured testimony was used. The court clarified that Ellinger's participation in the crime negated his claims, affirming that there are no varying degrees of armed robbery in Maryland law. Ellinger's claims regarding the attendant's testimony are deemed frivolous, as the attendant identified Ellinger in court and at multiple line-ups, despite not providing his address during testimony. Ellinger's allegations of perjury hinge on the assertion that the State's Attorney should have disregarded the attendant's testimony, but there was no evidence that the attendant was coerced into testifying falsely. Judge Macgill noted that Whitehead's characterization of Ellinger as the 'leader' in the robbery was not inherently false, as Ellinger did not leave the car. Ellinger's due process claim regarding the lack of appointed counsel on remand is rejected, as the trial judge had already thoroughly reviewed the case and addressed the relevant issues. The court found no need for further hearings. Ellinger's request for a transcript of his original trial is denied, as its relevance is unclear, and new claims raised are either waived or not properly before the court. Furthermore, Ellinger's grievance about being sentenced more harshly than his co-defendant does not warrant post-conviction relief. The application for relief is denied.