by special assignment, delivered the opinion of the Court.
On April 11, 1957, in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, four indictments were returned charging the appellant, Walter R. Shipley, with rоbbery with a deadly weapon, larceny, burglary, and carrying a deadly weapon. Upon pleаs of guilty to all of the charges, Judge Warnken sentenced the appellant to 22 years in the Marylаnd Penitentiary. Appellant was without benefit of counsel at his arraignment and trial.
On September 19, 1963, appellant filed a petition for habeas corpus in the same court and, because he had not been represented by counsel at the first trial, his convictions were set aside and a new trial was granted.
Counsel was appointed to represent appellant at the new trial, and on December 17, 1963, before Judge Sodaro, appellant was arraigned and guilty pleas were entered in his behalf by his counsel. Appellant was closely questioned as to whеther he understood the charges against him. He himself then pleaded guilty to each indictment. Judge Sodaro sentenced appellant to a total of 15 years in the Maryland Penitentiary, to commеnce as of the day of his arrest. From these convictions and sentences the appellаnt has appealed.
At the time of this appeal, appellant’s then counsel, Mr. Adler, was allowed to withdraw his appearance from the case and Mr. James Beach was apрointed by the court to prosecute the appeal.
The appellant originally notеd his appeal in proper person, setting forth four contentions. Subsequently, the court appointed counsel on appeal contended that the trial of this case amounted to a denial of due process and a violation of appellant’s constitutional rights because (a) his illegal arrest in 1957 was followed by an unreasonable detention before charges were рlaced ; (b) there was no counsel at the 1957 trial; (c) the court failed *411 to grant the relief prayed for on the writ of habeas corpus, i.e., prayer for releasе instead of the new trial that was granted; and (d) the second trial was illegal. The case was submitted on briеfs without argument.
There can be no merit in the contention that there was an illegal arrest in 1957 followеd by an unreasonable detention before charges were placed. The law is that an officer may lawfully arrest without a warrant and search the accused if a misdemeanor has been committed in his presence or where he has reasonable grounds to believe that the acсused has committed a felony.
Braxton v. State,
As to the claim in connection with the absence of counsel at the first trial there can be no merit, for appellаnt received a new trial as a result of a habeas corpus proceeding for that very reason. Nor can thеre be any merit to the claim that appellant should have been released and not retried as a result of the habeas corpus proceeding, the proper procedure after setting aside a сonviction because of denial of counsel being a new trial, and this relief was granted.
As to the contention that the second trial was illegal, the Court must point out that a voluntary plea of guilty when entered in the presence of counsel operates as a waiver of all non-jurisdictionаl defects or irregularities which may have occurred in the proceedings, and, further, makes the production of any evidence by the State unnecessary and results in a conviction
*412
not reviewable on appeal.
Gans v. Warden,
Judgment affirmed.