delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is аn appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Caroline County, in overruling a motion to dismiss an appeal to that Court, from a judgment rendered by a Justice of the Peace, against the аppellee. Of course, it is too> well established, for controversy, that this Court can not review the action of a Circuit Court in proceedings on appeal from a judgment of a Justicе of the Peace, provided the action was within the jurisdictional limits of that tribunal.
Starliper
v.
State,
The docket entries of the justice show as follows:
“September 13th, 1915.—On the oath of Ethel Thomas, who charges Earl Darling with having on the 13th day of September at Caroline County, State of Maryland, committed an assault and battery upon her, the said Ethel Thomas, contrary to law.
“State warrant issued, directed to Walter H. Lord, cоnstable, on the 13th day of September. Returned cepi. Trial, September 17, 1915. Traverser waives his right to jury trial, as dоes also State of Maryland.
“Traverser pleads guilty. Yerdict guilty. Judgment that the said Earl Darling be confinеd in the Maryland House of Correction for the period of one year from this date.”
There аppears in the record a certified copy of certain papers filed in habeas corpus proceedings instituted by Earl 'Darling against the Sheriff of Caroline County, on September 20th, 1915. These papers consist of copies of the petition, the writ, the commitment and the order of Court.
It apрears that, within the statutory limit of ten days for an appeal, the appellee ordered an appeal, but the justice refused to note the same, refused bail and had him confined to jail until the sheriff could transfer him to the place of confinement, upon the theory that he hаd no right to appeal from a judgment and sentence pronounced after a plea of guilty.
The writ of habeas corpus was sought probably upon the belief that the only way the appellee could get relief was by and through Section 535 of Article 27 of the Code, which was in force at that time, but has since been repealed by Chapter 556 of the Acts of 1916. Judges Adkins and Hopper, heard testimony and argument, and determined that *254 the appellee was entitled to his appeal and ordered the justice to admit him to bail and transmit the papers to the Circuit Court. This action is not, however, the subject of criticism in this Court..
Upon the.case being called for trial the State filed, in writing, a motion to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that “the Circuit Court for Caroline County does not have jurisdiction to try thе case appealed from the Justice of the Peace when traverser and Statе waive jury trial and judgment is entered upon a plea of guilty.”
In delivering the opinion of this Court in Lowe v. State, 111 Md. 1, Judge Reabce, while recognizing and re-affirming the rule, that a party can- not have a review of a judgment entered on a plea of guilty, yet points out, from a review of the authorities, that the rule only applies when the judgment is properly entered, and that “properly entered” means, that the plea of guilty has been made freеly, voluntarily and with a full understanding of its nature and effect and of the facts upon which it is founded.
In the prеsent case, the record is barren of the facts upon which the Court based its determination. It does not show whether testimony was taken at the hearing or whether the_ testimony taken at the hearing of the
habeas corpus
before the same judges was used. As was held in
State
v.
Williams,
The position in which this Court is placed by the absence оf the facts which were in the possession of the lower Court when it made its ruling is, that we are asked tо rule that it did not have jurisdiction to hear’ the case, when those facts might show clearly that this case was well within the recognized exception to the general rule.
Not being able to' pass upon this question in the present state of the record, we are compelled to dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.