Blann v. Director of Patuxent Institution

202 A.2d 722, 235 Md. 661, 1964 Md. LEXIS 820
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedJuly 28, 1964
Docket[App. No. 145, September Term, 1963.]
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 202 A.2d 722 (Blann v. Director of Patuxent Institution) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Blann v. Director of Patuxent Institution, 202 A.2d 722, 235 Md. 661, 1964 Md. LEXIS 820 (Md. 1964).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

John Willard Blann was adjudged to be a defective delinquent by a jury in the Circuit Court for Talbot County, and from that determination has applied to this Court for leave to appeal.

The only contention he raises is that the trial court “failed to advise Applicant of his constitutional right to counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States before and during his statutory Examination for Defective Delinquency by the Patuxent Institution * * *,” and *662 the “Applicant was not in' fact represented * * * by counsel during said statutory Examination being a ‘critical stage’ in the said Defective Delinquency proceeding,” primarily citing in support of his allegation White v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 59, 10 L. Ed. 2d 193, and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799. (Subsequent to the report of Patuxent to the effect that the applicant was a defective delinquent and prior to Blann’s hearing, the trial judge, acting in compliance with Art. 31B, Sec. 8 (a) and (b), appointed counsel to represent the applicant at his hearing.)

' Passing the point that nowhere in the record does it appear that Blann below made the contention which he now asks us to consider, the answer to his claim is that the White and Gideon cases apply specifically to criminal prosecutions, while we have held many times that proceedings under the Defective Delinquent Act are, in their substantive and procedural aspects, civil in nature. See Blizzard v. State, 218 Md. 384, 386; Simmons v. Director, 227 Md. 661, 663; McCloskey v. Director, 230 Md. 635, 637; Monroe v. Director, 230 Md. 650, 653.

Application denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Williams & Fulwood v. Director, Patuxent Institution
347 A.2d 179 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1975)
McDonough v. State
253 A.2d 517 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1969)
McDonough v. Director
240 A.2d 322 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1968)
Knox v. Director, Patuxent Institution
232 A.2d 824 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1967)
Wood v. Director of Patuxent Institution
223 A.2d 175 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
202 A.2d 722, 235 Md. 661, 1964 Md. LEXIS 820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blann-v-director-of-patuxent-institution-md-1964.