HABEAS CORPUS — Perjured Testimony. A claim of perjured testimony cannot be considered on habeas corpus, where there is no allegation of knowledge or collusion on the part of the State. p. 602
HABEAS CORPUS — Evidence — Sufficiency of — Alleged Irregularities in Trial. The sufficiency of the evidence, or alleged irregularities in the trial (such as the failure to list two witnesses called by the State), cannot be raised on habeas corpus. p. 602
HABEAS CORPUS — Failure to Ask Petitioner If He Had Anything to Say Before Sentence. A complaint that the court did not ask petitioner if he had anything to say before sentence was pronounced was without merit on habeas corpus. p. 602
J.E.B.
Decided December 24, 1957.
HENDERSON, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an application for leave to appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner was found guilty of robbery in the Criminal Court of Baltimore and sentenced to ten years (later reduced to eight years) in the Penitentiary. Petitioner was represented by counsel, but complains that perjured testimony was used against him, and the evidence was legally insufficient. We have repeatedly stated that a claim of perjured testimony cannot be considered on habeas corpus, where there is no allegation of knowledge or collusion on the part of the State. Lucas v. Warden, 211 Md. 626. Sufficiency of the evidence, or alleged irregularities in the trial, such as failure to list two witnesses called by the State, cannot be raised on habeas corpus. The final complaint, that the court did not ask petitioner if he had anything to say before sentence, is without merit. Even on direct appeal, it has been held that this would not constitute a reversible error. See Dutton v. State, 123 Md. 373; Duker v. State, 162 Md. 546; Farrell v. State, 213 Md. 348; Note, 113 A.L.R. 821.
Application denied, with costs.