Legal Opinion

Boston v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided December 13, 1963No. [App. No. 68, September Term, 1963.]PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

In his petition for post conviction relief from his imprison ment for burglary, the petitioner asserted twelve alleged errors in his trial which he contends entitle him to relief.

For the reasons stated by Chief Judge Manley in the lower court we agree that the applicant was not entitled to post conviction relief for any of the reasons asserted in the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, tenth and eleventh contentions and that part of the twelfth (concerning the involuntary character of his statement to the police) which was treated as a part of the third contention. While it appears…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Hayden v. Warden of the Maryland PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1963

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Hunt v. Warden, Maryland PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1964
  2. Gans v. Warden of the Maryland PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1964
  3. Ledbetter v. Warden of the Maryland PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1964
  4. Jackson v. Warden of the Maryland PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1964
  5. John Wesley Hunt v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, John Nathan Bristow, Jr. v. Vernon L. Pepersack, Warden, Maryland State Penitentiary, James E. Cox v. Vernon L. Pepersack, Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, State of MarylandCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1964

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API