Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the petitioner sought leave to appeal following the denial of his writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner had been indicted for assault with intent to kill and found guilty of assault, resulting in a five-year sentence. At the time of his offense, he was on parole from an eighteen-year sentence for second-degree murder. The core legal issue revolved around whether the new sentence should run concurrently with the unserved portion of the prior sentence. The court applied Section 101 of Article 41 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, which mandates that sentences run consecutively unless specified otherwise by the judge, which was not the case here. The petitioner also pointed to a clerical error in his commitment papers as a basis for his release, but the court held that this did not justify relief through habeas corpus. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was denied, and the petitioner was assigned the costs of the proceedings.
Legal Issues Addressed
Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences under Maryland Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied Section 101 of Article 41 of the Annotated Code of Maryland to determine that the new sentence must run consecutively to the original term since the judge did not specify otherwise.
Reasoning: Section 101 of Article 41 of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1951) states that when a paroled prisoner is convicted of a new crime while on parole, the original term must run consecutively unless the judge specifies otherwise.
Correction of Clerical Errors in Commitment Paperssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that a clerical error in the commitment papers, which mistakenly indicated a conviction for a different charge, does not justify release via habeas corpus.
Reasoning: Justice also claimed a clerical error in his commitment papers indicated a conviction for assault with intent to kill instead of assault, but this does not warrant release via habeas corpus.
Denial of Leave to Appeal in Habeas Corpus Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioner's application for leave to appeal the denial of a writ of habeas corpus was rejected, with costs assigned to him.
Reasoning: The application for leave to appeal was denied, with costs assigned to the petitioner.