Legal Opinion
Plump & Kye v. Warden
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided September 7, 2001No. [P.C. Nos. 6 & 7, September Term, 1959 (Adv.).]PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPrescott, J.
These are applications for leave to appeal under the Post Conviction Procedure Act. The two applications may be considered together because the petitions are identical. The applicants were found to be indigent and the court appointed counsel to represent them. A hearing was held in which an Assistant State’s Attorney and counsel representing the applicants were present. After that hearing Judge Reuben Qppenheimer dismissed the petitions.
The applicants, in their petitions, raised three grounds:
“1. Illegal search and seizure
2. Illegal convicted—contrary to indictment
3. Illegal sentence, i.e.,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Schwab v. BerggrenSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Roberts v. Warden of Maryland PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1955
- Olewiler v. BradyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1945
- Duffy v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1926
- Plump v. WardenCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1958
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Brown v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1974
- Ash v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1965
- Galloway v. Warden of Maryland PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1960
- Truesdale v. Warden of Maryland PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1960
- Redman v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1975
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.