Daugherty v. Director of Patuxent Institution

192 A.2d 760, 232 Md. 637, 1963 Md. LEXIS 752
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedJuly 18, 1963
DocketApp. No. 6
StatusPublished

This text of 192 A.2d 760 (Daugherty 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
Daugherty v. Director of Patuxent Institution, 192 A.2d 760, 232 Md. 637, 1963 Md. LEXIS 752 (Md. 1963).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this application for leave to appeal from the order of the Criminal Court of Baltimore committing him to Patuxent Institution after a finding of defective delinquency, the petitioner sought leave to appeal as an indigent.

The record shows that the petitioner made oath that he was indigent, but it does not show that there was any hearing on, or determination of, that question by the trial court pursuant to Rule 894 a 2 (b). 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, § 11A. Crisp v. Director, 231 Md. 616, Colbert v. Director, 232 Md. 634.

Application for leave to appeal granted and 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

Crisp v. Director of Patuxent Institution
189 A.2d 117 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1963)
Colbert v. Director of Patuxent Institution
192 A.2d 759 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
192 A.2d 760, 232 Md. 637, 1963 Md. LEXIS 752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daugherty-v-director-of-patuxent-institution-md-1963.