Colbert v. Director of Patuxent Institution
This text of 192 A.2d 759 (Colbert 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.
Opinion
In this application for leave to appeal from the order of the lower court recommitting the petitioner to Patuxent Institution after the second redetermination of his status as a defective delinquent, the petitioner sought leave to appeal as an indigent.
The docket entries show that the petition was duly received [635]*635and filed, but they do not indicate that the petition was submitted to the judge who presided at the redetermination hearing for a determination by the lower court, pursuant to Maryland Rule 894 a 2 (b), as to whether the petitioner is an indigent and unable to “defray the expense of making application and prosecuting the appeal.” See Crisp v. Director, 231 Md. 616, 189 A. 2d 117. We must therefore grant the application for leave to appeal and remand for further proceedings in conformity with the provisions of Code (1962 Cum. Supp.), Art. 31B, § 11 A.
Application for leave' to\ appeal granted md case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
192 A.2d 759, 232 Md. 634, 1963 Md. LEXIS 750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colbert-v-director-of-patuxent-institution-md-1963.