 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Barr v. Maryland9/30/1994
d. Gluckstern v. Sutton, supra, 319 Md. 634. It would be anomalous, at best, absurd at worst, to attribute to the General Assembly an intent to limit the right of someone under sentence of death or actual confinement to seek appellate review when an alternative form of collateral attack proves unsuccessful but not to limit that right when pursued by someone on parole or probation. Yet that is precisely the result that would obtain if appellant's construction prevails.
Although, for the reason noted, Valentine is not precisely on point, we think it properly expresses the policy that should be applied here -- that if relief is available under PCPA, as it is to appellant, there is no right to seek appellate review from the denial of an alternative form of post conviction relief. That policy avoids the senseless result that would otherwise obtain and preserves the essential integrity of PCPA. We therefore conclude that appellant has no right to seek direct appellate review of the partial denial of his motion to correct the sentence by deleting the condition he finds onerous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; APPELLANT TO PAY THE COSTS.
Disposition
APPEAL DISMISSED; APPELLANT TO PAY THE COSTS.
Page 1 2 3 4 Maryland DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|