Legal Opinion

Cheeseboro v. Warden of MaryLand Penitentiary

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided March 7, 1961No. [App. No. 58, September Term, 1960.]PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

In his petition for post conviction relief, the petitioner alleged numerous reasons—including one to the effect that the trial court erred when it received into evidence a “coerced, false and involuntary” confession—he claimed entitled him to post conviction relief. None had substance in that all of them concerned matters involving procedural irregularities, incompetency of trial counsel and the weight and sufficiency of the evidence which cannot be raised in a post conviction proceeding. Sodaro, J., who heard the petition, correctly concluded that the petitioner was “merely attempting to…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Whitley v. Warden of Maryland House of CorrectionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1978
  2. Chislom v. Warden of Maryland House of CorrectionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1960
  3. Henson v. WardenCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1960

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Wilson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1979
  2. Hunt v. Warden, Maryland PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1964
  3. Ralph v. PepersackDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1962
  4. Briscoe v. WardenCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1968
  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

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API