Queen v. Director of Patuxent Institution
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the Court
Pbr Curiam.
This is an application for leave to appeal from a redetermination of the applicant’s status as a defective delinquent, by a court and jury. He was represented by court appointed counsel. The applicant first contends that he was placed in double jeopardy because the “recommitment was based on evidence of his past record, which was used on the original commitment.” There is no merit in the contention. See Eggleston v. State, 209 Md. 504, 513. Antecedent behavior is a relevant inquiry, and violates no Constitutional rights. The next contention is that Dr. Boslow, the Director of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Eggleston v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1956
- Purks v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1961
3Cited by14 opinions
- Bremer v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1973
- Sas v. MarylandCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1964
- John Sas v. State of Maryland, Director of Patuxent Institution, Albert Delanor Murel v. State of Maryland and Director of Patuxent Institution, James C. Shine v. State of Maryland, Director of Patuxent Institution and the Maryland State Legislature, Timothy Patrick O'COnnOr v. State of Maryland Director, Patuxent Institution, George L. Creswell v. Director, Patuxent InstitutionCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1964
- McDonough v. Director of Patuxent InstitutionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1962
- Dickerson v. Director of Patuxent InstitutionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1964
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.