Murel v. Director of the Patuxent Institution
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1Per curiam
The application for leave to appeal in this case does not comply with Maryland Rule 894 a 2 (a) in that it does not contain a concise statement of the reason why the order should be reversed or modified and contains no list of errors allegedly committed by the trial court. The application is in the form of a letter to the applicant’s trial counsel. It claims that the result of the trial of the question of his defective delinquency was unconstitutional and it manifests thorough dissatisfaction with the finding of defective delinquency. It points to no specific error and is clearly…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Polaski v. Director of Patuxent InstitutionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1962
- Wisner v. Director of Patuxent InstitutionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1962
3Cited by6 opinions
- Murel v. DirectorCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1965
- Mullen v. Director of Patuxent InstitutionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1964
- Ransom v. WardenCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1964
- Capparella v. Director of Patuxent InstitutionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1965
- Fox v. Director of Patuxent InstitutionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1966
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.