Childress v. Director of Patuxent Institution

205 A.2d 294, 236 Md. 656, 1964 Md. LEXIS 968
Court of Appeals of Maryland·Decided December 7, 1964·No. App. No. 63·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this application for leave to appeal from a determination of defective delinquency, the applicant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient is without merit. He further contends that the court was erroneously informed that his last conviction had been for burglary. In fact, the conviction was for breaking into a shop and stealing goods worth $5.00 or more [657]*657under Code (1964 Supp.), Art. 27, sec. 33, creating a penitentiary misdemeanor. The error, if it can be deemed an error, was quite immaterial and not prejudicial, since the crime for which he was convicted met the prerequisites of the statute. Code (1957), Art. 31 B, sec. 6(a)(2). He also had a long record of prior convictions. See Gee v. Director, 231 Md. 610, 611. His contention that he should have been convicted of “petty larceny” is beside the point. See Hammond v. Director, 229 Md. 643, 644.

Application denied.

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

Childress v. Director of Patuxent Institution, 205 A.2d 294, 236 Md. 656, 1964 Md. LEXIS 968 (Md. 1964).

205 A.2d 294 (Childress v. Director of Patuxent Institution) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hammond v. Director of Patuxent Institution
184 A.2d 628 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1962)
Gee v. Director of Patuxent Institution
188 A.2d 565 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1963)