Legal Opinion

Shifflett v. Warden

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided October 20, 1959No. P. C. No. 10PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

For the reasons stated by Judge Oppenheimer in his opinion in the Criminal Court of Baltimore for denying Shifflett’s application under the Post Conviction Procedure Act, his application for leave to appeal from the order denying relief is denied as to the contentions there presented. His contention that his hearing on his application was invalid because he was not present is untenable. His presence was not necessary. Code (1959 Supp.), Art. 27, Section 645G; Plump v. Warden, 220 Md. 662, 153 A. 2d 269, 270. Other contentions not presented in the trial court are not properly before this Court…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Plump & Kye v. WardenCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
  2. Young v. Warden of Maryland PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
  3. Day v. Warden of Maryland House of CorrectionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1958

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Whitley v. Warden of Maryland House of CorrectionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1978
  2. Truesdale v. Warden of Maryland PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1960
  3. Burgess v. Warden of Maryland House of CorrectionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1959
  4. Burgess v. WardenCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1959
  5. Deal v. Warden of Maryland House of CorrectionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1960

3 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