Opinion ID: 290857
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Robert James

Text: 2 Robert James was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Criminal Court of Baltimore on March 31, 1939. He did not appeal from his conviction and sentence. On May 7, 1965, he applied for relief under the Maryland Post Conviction Procedure Act. 3 In his state petition James raised eight points of error. Among these were allegations that his motion for a new trial had been denied because he was unable to pay an attorney to represent him on the motion and that his request for an appeal was denied because he was indigent and unable to afford a transcript or counsel. After a hearing the state judge rejected all of James' contentions and denied his petition. The state court made the following comment in its opinion: 4 The court is satisfied that he was not deprived of his right to have his Motion for New Trial heard because of indigency; it is apparent that he was content to have it withdrawn in consideration of the fact that he was to receive life imprisonment rather than capital punishment. 5 Memorandum Opinion of O'Donnell, J. at 6 (March 10, 1966). The Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of relief. 6 The statement quoted above was predicated, at least in part, on the testimony of James' court-appointed attorney. That testimony, in pertinent part, was: 7 THE COURT: Mr. James, the Petitioner here, says that this motion for a new trial which you filed on his behalf was not prosecuted, was withdrawn without his knowledge and without his consent. Do you have any recollection in connection with that, Mr. Henry? 8 THE WITNESS: I guess I do, your honor. I talked with the defendant. This is customary after a trial to talk with the defendant. I talked with Mr. James about his case and told him that I thought he made a good witness. I thought he had had a fair trial and I said you know we have a right under the law to file a motion for a new trial, but, now, if that motion is granted to get a new trial and you're found guilty    your punishment may be greater, and I said, how do you feel about it. As I recall, he said that he didn't want to prosecute the motion. 9 Q. In other words, was this after he had realized he would get life imprisonment? 10 A. That's right. I told him that. 11 Record, State Post Conv. Hear. (James), vol. 2, at 4-5 (February 14, 1966). 12 On May 16, 1967, James petitioned the United States District Court for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he had been denied the assistance of appellate counsel because of indigency. After argument by James' privately retained counsel, the district court, in an oral opinion, denied James' petition. In this opinion the district court stated, inter alia: 13 Now, the allegation that Mr. Henry withdrew the motion for a new trial without the consent of the petitioner and the petitioner did not waive this right is fully dealt with by Judge O'Donnell and is rather clearly negatived by Mr. Henry's testimony in the postconviction hearing. The Court sees no reason to doubt what Mr. Henry said. Everything seems to tie together to make it perfectly clear that the motion for a new trial was not pressed and was in fact waived by the defendant and that the defendant, asI have said before, was satisfied that he escaped the death chamber. 14 Record, Proceedings in United States District Court for the District of Maryland (James) at 3 (April 5, 1968). James has appealed from this denial of his petition. On appeal he asserts for the first time that he was denied his state statutory right to appeal because of fear of receiving the death penalty on retrial.