Criminal Law — Assault and Malicious Destruction of Property Before Magistrate — No Requirement For Appointment of Counsel — In Such Cases, Request For Counsel Must Be Shown To Release On Habeas Corpus — Not Allowed To Present Testimony — If It Does Not Appear What Testimony Was To Be Presented, Whether Request For Summons, or What Attempts Were Denied, No Release On Habeas Corpus.
There is no requirement for the appointment of counsel for an accused before trial magistrates in assault and malicious destruction of property cases. p. 721
If, in such cases, it does not appear that the accused requested counsel, lack of counsel is not a ground for release on habeas corpus. p. 721
Where petitioner for writ of habeas corpus alleges as ground for release that he was not allowed to present testimony but it does not appear what testimony he desired to present, whether he asked that witnesses be summoned or what attempts he made to get them were denied him, he cannot be released. p. 721 Decided January 11, 1950.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner is confined in the Maryland House of Correction on a commitment from a Justice of the Peace of Montgomery County for the offense of assault and malicious destruction of property. Judge Nilles declined to issue the writ and that action the petitioner asks us to review.
He alleges that no counsel was appointed to defend him. There is no requirement for the appointment of counsel before magistrates in cases such as this, and it does not appear that he requested such appointment. State ex rel. Jordan v. Warden, 191 Md. 753, 59 A.2d 778. He also states that he was not allowed to present testimony. It does not appear what testimony he desired to present, whether he asked that witnesses be summoned, or what attempts made to get them by him were denied him. Holliday v. Warden, 191 Md. 763, 59 A.2d 777. We are unable to give him relief on any of these matters under these circumstances.
The petition will be denied.
Application denied, without costs.