You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Murray v. Warden

Citations: 139 A.2d 268; 1958 Md. LEXIS 386; 215 Md. 655Docket: H. C. No. 87

Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland; March 3, 1958; Maryland; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County denied a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from an individual convicted of incest in 1955, who was sentenced to five years in the Maryland House of Correction. The petitioner argued that he was in California at the time the crime allegedly occurred, presenting documentary evidence as an alibi. Additionally, he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call his wife as a witness during the trial. The court clarified that evidence of an alibi or proof of innocence does not warrant the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, as established in prior cases. Furthermore, claims of ineffective counsel are insufficient unless accompanied by allegations of fraud, bad faith, or collusion with state officials, none of which were present in this case. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was denied, with costs assigned to the petitioner.

Legal Issues Addressed

Denial of Application for Leave to Appeal

Application: The court denied the petitioner's application for leave to appeal due to the insufficiency of the claims presented.

Reasoning: Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was denied, with costs assigned to the petitioner.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Application: The court determined that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel require allegations of fraud, bad faith, or collusion with state officials to be considered, which were absent in this case.

Reasoning: Furthermore, claims of ineffective counsel are insufficient unless accompanied by allegations of fraud, bad faith, or collusion with state officials, none of which were present in this case.

Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus

Application: The court held that presenting evidence of an alibi or proof of innocence does not justify the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

Reasoning: The court clarified that evidence of an alibi or proof of innocence does not warrant the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, as established in prior cases.