Summary
The Maryland Court of Appeals denied William Barbee's application for leave to appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief. The court held that claims challenging guilt, the sufficiency of the evidence, newly discovered evidence, and an unexplained desire for a delayed appeal were not grounds for post-conviction relief under the Maryland Post Conviction Procedure Act.
Court
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction
Maryland
Decision date
September 14, 2001
Docket number
P.C. No. 14, September Term, 1958
Disposition
writ_denied
Questions Presented
- Whether claims of innocence, newly discovered evidence, and insufficiency of the evidence could be reviewed through a post-conviction proceeding rather than by a timely motion for a new trial or direct appeal.
- Whether the petitioner's generalized assertions that his constitutional rights had been violated were sufficient to establish a basis for post-conviction relief.
- Whether the petitioner was entitled to leave to prosecute an appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief.
Holdings
- Claims concerning guilt or innocence, newly discovered alibi evidence, and the sufficiency of the evidence were not cognizable as substitutes for a timely motion for a new trial or a direct appeal.
- A conclusory allegation that constitutional guarantees were denied, without facts substantiating a constitutional violation, is insufficient to support setting aside a sentence under Maryland post-conviction procedure.
- Because Barbee failed to show that he was entitled to relief under any ground identified in the Post Conviction Procedure Act, his application for leave to prosecute an appeal was denied.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…