Opinion
[H.C. No. 66, October Term, 1956.]
Decided February 7, 1957.
HABEAS CORPUS — Severance — Denial of. Assuming that petitioner requested a severance of his trial, its denial goes to the regularity of the proceedings and is reviewable, if at all, on appeal, and not on habeas corpus. p. 656
HABEAS CORPUS — Counsel — Incompetency and Improper Advice. Where petitioner contended that his court-appointed counsel was incompetent and gave him improper advice, and that he complained about his counsel, but he did not say (nor did the record show) to whom he complained, the contention was no ground for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, at least where the petitioner failed to allege fraud, bad faith or collusion with any official of the State. pp. 656-657
HABEAS CORPUS — Evidence — Alleged Errors in Admission of. Alleged errors in the admission of evidence in the trial court are reviewable on appeal, but not on habeas corpus. p. 657
J.E.B.
Decided February 7, 1957.
Habeas corpus proceeding by Nathaniel Shields against the Warden of the Maryland House of Correction. From a refusal of the writ, petitioner applied for leave to appeal.
Application denied, with costs.
Before BRUNE, C.J., and COLLINS, HENDERSON, HAMMOND and PRESCOTT, JJ.
Nathaniel Shields, serving a sentence of five years in the House of Correction, asked Judge Michael Paul Smith of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County for the writ of habeas corpus and was turned down. He seeks leave to appeal from that denial, basing his right to relief on three grounds.
His first contention is that he was jointly tried with his brother in spite of the fact that he had informed his counsel that he wished to be tried separately. He does not allege that he made this request to the court and, assuming that he did, the denial of a severance goes to the regularity of the proceedings and is reviewable, if at all, on appeal and not on habeas corpus. Barker v. Warden, 208 Md. 662. Secondly, he contends that his court-appointed counsel was incompetent and gave him improper advice. He states that he did complain about his counsel, but he does not say, nor does the record show, to whom the complaint was made. Under these circumstances, we have repeatedly refused to recognize the contention of incompetence of counsel as a ground for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, at least where the petitioner fails to allege fraud, bad faith or collusion with any official of the State. Faught v. Warden, 205 Md. 639; Wagner v. Warden, 205 Md. 648.
The petitioner's final contention is that the trial court was biased and prejudiced by the admission of his record, although he states that he is not attempting to retry the question of his guilt or innocence. Alleged errors in the admission of evidence in the trial court are reviewable on appeal but not on habeas corpus. Thompson v. Warden, 209 Md. 628; Bergen v. Warden, 208 Md. 677; Stokes v. Warden, 205 Md. 629.
Application denied, with costs.