delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is аn application by Joseph Leslie Shaffer for leave to appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus. He pleaded guilty tо a charge of burglary and was sentenced by the Criminal Court of Baltimоre to three years in the Maryland House of Correction.
Petitiоner contends that he has a speech defect and that actually he pleaded not guilty and that the trial court mistook the plea to be one of guilty and before he could explain this to the court he had been sentenced. The transcript of the arraignment proceedings in the Criminal Court of Baltimore shows, Code (1951), Art. 42, sеc. 5, that the Clerk of the Court notified Shaffer that he was charged with burglаry and he was asked whether he received a copy of the indictment. Shaffer answered: “Yes.” He was asked his age and he reрlied : “Nineteen.” He was also asked: “How do you plead ?”, to which he replied: “Guilty.” This shows that the trial judge, the stenographer and the Clerk understood that petitioner pleaded guilty. It is not conceivаble that all of these should have been mistaken as to the plea. Petitioner further contends that certain necessary witnessеs were available to him and due to the excitement and his speech defect he was not able to make the court understand concerning the nature and whereabouts of these witnesses. Allеged irregularities in the conduct of a trial are not reviewable on
habeas corpus. Barker v.
Warden,
Petitioner further contends that he was only nineteen years of age and below the average in mental capacity аnd was suffering from a congenital speech defect. He was аsked by
*637
the trial court whether he was represented by counsel аnd he indicated that he did not have counsel. To this remark the court made no reply, and when petitioner “spoke up” to ask whether counsel could be appointed for him, the trial court said “all right then” and requested the Clerk to continue the case “and ask for the pleading.” At that point petitioner became exсited and tried “to stammer out” that he wanted counsel appointed. There is nothing in the record before us to substantiate any of thеse statements made by the petitioner.
Stokes v. Warden,
Petitioner had been previously convicted of unauthorized use of an automobile, and of malicious destruction of property at the Maryland Statе Reformatory. Apparently his physical and mental conditions were the same when he was convicted of those offenses as at the time of the trial in the instant case. He was familiar with court proceedings. It was said by Judge Hammond in
Truelove v. Warden,
Application denied, with costs.