Professional Documents
Culture Documents
4) The name and any official capacity of the person by whom the individual is confined
or restrained or, if not known, a description to enable that person to be identified
5) The circumstances and the cause of the confinement
6) If the confinement is pursuant to a judgement or order of a court, the name of the
court, the date of the judgement or order, and the case number, if known
Pursuant to Maryland Rule 15-302(b), if a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is filed
by or on behalf of an individual confined as a result of a sentence for a criminal offense, of an
order in a juvenile proceeding, or of a judgement of contempt of court, the petition, in addition to
the general provisions (listed above), the petition must state:
1) Whether any previous petition for habeas corpus or other post conviction relief has
been filed with respect to the confinement
2) With respect to each previous petition for habeas corpus or other post conviction
relief: (A) the court or judge to whom the petition was directed, (B) all grounds of the
petition, (C) the determination made on the petition, (D) whether any appeal or
application for leave to appeal was filed from any order on the petition, and (E) any
determination made on the appeal or application for leave to appeal
3) All grounds for the issuance of the writ that were not asserted in any previous petition
for habeas corpus or other post-conviction relief
According to Maryland Rule 15-303 Procedure on Habeas Corpus Petition, action on
petition is based upon whether the Petitioner complies with Maryland Rule 15-302. If the
Petitioner complies with this rule, the judge must grant the writ, unless:
1) The judge finds the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief
2) The legality of the confinement was determined in a prior habeas corpus or other post
conviction proceedings, and no new ground is shown sufficient to warrant issuance of
the writ
3) There is no good reason why new grounds now raised by the Petitioner were not
raised in previous proceedings
4) There has been an unjustified delay in filing the petition that has prejudiced the ability
of the person having custody of the individual confined or restrained to respond to the
petition
C. Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Versus Other Appellate Remedies
A Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus can only be used to raise claims of the legality of
a prisoners confinement. These claims can also be raised in a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief
or an appeal. It is important to remember that a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is only
appropriate when the relief sought is release or a new parole hearing. If another form of relief is
sought, such as a reconsideration of sentence, another appellate remedy must be used. Maryland
Rule 15-303 states:
When a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is filed by or on behalf of an
individual confined as a result of a sentence for a criminal offense, including a
criminal contempt, or a commitment order in a juvenile delinquency proceeding,
the judge may order that the petition be treated as a petition under the Post
Conviction Procedure Act if the individual confined consents in writing or on the
record and the judge is satisfied that the post-conviction proceeding is adequate to
test the legality of the confinement. Upon entry of the order, the judge shall
transmit the petition, a certified copy of the order, and any other pertinent papers
to the court in which the sentence or judgment was entered. Subsequent procedure
shall be as in a post-conviction proceeding.
In sum, the same claims can be raised in both a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and a
Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. The Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act provides a
remedy where a petitioner may proceed as an indigent person and have counsel appoint for him
or her if the petitioner is unable to pay costs or employ counsel, whereas in a habeas corpus
proceeding, the petitioner is not entitled to have counsel appointed (Md. Law Encyclopedia
Habeas Corpus 32). If the court determine that the petitioner would benefit from the
opportunity to be appointed counsel, the court may decide to construe the Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus as a Petition for Postconviction Relief.
A Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and a Petition for a Writ of Coram Nobis
CANNOT address the same claims. A Petition for a Writ of Coram Nobis must be filed by a
person who is NOT incarcerated or on probation/parole, whereas a Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus must be filed by someone who is incarcerated or detained. In addition, a Petition for a
Writ of Coram Nobis challenges the grounds of a conviction and collateral consequences of that
conviction whereas a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus challenges the legality of a prisoners
confinement with no inquiry into a prisoners guilt or innocence, or consequences of a
conviction.
D. Appeals of Habeas Corpus Decisions in Maryland
The decision can only be appealed where specifically authorized by statute1. There are
only four such statutes that authorize an appeal: (1) CP 9110, which authorizes appeals in
extradition cases; (2) CJP 3707, which authorizes an application for leave to appeal in cases
involving right to bail or allegedly excessive bail; (3) CJP 3706, which provides for an appeal
if a court issued a writ of habeas corpus based on the unconstitutionality of the law under which
the petitioner was convicted (such a situation would create an avenue for the state to appeal a
granting of a writ of habeas corpus); and (4) CP 7107, a provision in the Uniform
Postconviction Procedure Act, which permits an appeal if the writ was sought under CP 9
110 or for a purpose other than to challenge the legality of a conviction or sentence.
E. Maryland Habeas Corpus Versus Federal Habeas Corpus
Habeas corpus petitions in Maryland must allege that the conviction or sentences violate
the U.S. Constitution, Maryland state law, or the Maryland Constitution. The petitioner must be
detained in a Maryland state prison. Federal habeas corpus petitions must allege that the
conviction or sentence violate the U.S. Constitution, a federal law, or a U.S. treaty (28 U.S.C.
2254(a)). Federal habeas corpus petitions cannot contain allegations solely based on state law or
a state constitution and may only occur AFTER the entire state direct appeal and post-conviction
processes are complete.
1 See Gluckstern v. Sutton, 319 Md. 634
4 See Ford v. Warden of Md. Penitentiary, 214 Md. 649 and Legrand v. Warden of Md. House of
Correction, 205 Md. 662
5 See Ford v. Warden of Md. Penitentiary, 214 Md. 649 and Whitley v. Warden of Md. House of
Correction, 222 Md. 608
8 See Lomax v. Warden, Maryland Correctional Training Center, 356 Md. 569, 741 A.2d 476
corpus from a federal. These decisions disallow the re-examination of constitutional questions
decided by a state court of competent jurisdiction and holds that habeas corpus cannot be granted
to a state prisoner if that state has in place an adequate corrective process for the denial of
constitutional rights.
From the 2000s to the present day, efforts to combat terrorism after 9/11 led to legislative
action regarding the habeas corpus rights of aliens designated by military authorities as enemy
combatants. The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006
eliminated such rights for enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere.
The Supreme Court overturned these laws in part, however, ruling in 2008 on Boumediene v.
Bush that Guantanamo detainees possessed habeas rights because the United States exercised
some sovereignty over that territory a decision that remains in force.