POST CONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT — Guilt Or Innocence Not Reconsidered — Claim That Counsel Misled Petitioner Into Pleading Guilty. In a proceeding brought under the Post Conviction Procedure Act by a petitioner who had pleaded guilty to two criminal charges, the court below in the post conviction case properly refused to reconsider his guilt or innocence. The Act is not a substitute for a direct remedy on appeal or a new trial. And a plea of guilty which is freely made is a conviction of the highest order. Nor was the petitioner entitled to relief on the ground that he was not properly represented by his court-appointed counsel, who allegedly misled him into pleading guilty on the representation that he would receive a more lenient sentence if he did so. The court below heard the testimony of the petitioner and of his counsel on this matter and found against the petitioner on the facts, concluding that the representation had been fully adequate. pp. 665-666
POST CONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT — Application For Leave To Appeal — Contentions Not Presented Below Not Properly Before This Court On. p. 666
J.E.B.
Decided October 13, 1960.
HAMMOND, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
On April 1, 1958, petitioner entered a plea of guilty to two charges of aiding and abetting in the commission of two armed robberies at different locations in Worcester County, Maryland. He plead guilty and was sentenced to be confined in the Maryland Penitentiary for terms of 20 and 10 years; said terms to run concurrently. His petition for relief under the Post Conviction Procedure Act was denied by Judge Child after a hearing wherein petitioner was allowed to testify.
The trial court properly refused to reconsider the guilt or innocence of the accused. See Dorris v. Warden, 222 Md. 586; Slack v. Warden, 222 Md. 626, 629. The Post Conviction Procedure Act is not a substitute for a direct remedy on appeal or a new trial. Banks v. Warden, 220 Md. 652, 654. And, a plea of guilty which is freely made is a conviction of the highest order. Roberts v. Warden, 221 Md. 576, 580.
The main contention of the petitioner is that he was not properly represented by his court-appointed counsel who misled him into pleading guilty on the representation that he would receive a more lenient sentence if he did so (actually he received a shorter sentence than his confederate). The court below took petitioner's testimony and that of his counsel at the original trial on this matter and found against petitioner on the facts, concluding that the representation had been fully adequate. There is no claim that the guilty plea was induced by action or promise of any official of the State as in Warrington v. Warden, 222 Md. 601.
The other contentions raised by petitioner in this application were not presented to the trial court and therefore are not properly before us and will not be considered. Player v. Warden, 222 Md. 619, 621; Whitley v. Warden, 222 Md. 608, 612; Byrd v. Warden, 222 Md. 577, 578.
Application denied.