Gee v. Director of Patuxent Institution

188 A.2d 565, 231 Md. 610, 1963 Md. LEXIS 496
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedMarch 8, 1963
Docket[App. No. 56, September Term, 1962.]
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 188 A.2d 565 (Gee 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
Gee v. Director of Patuxent Institution, 188 A.2d 565, 231 Md. 610, 1963 Md. LEXIS 496 (Md. 1963).

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

This is an application for leave to appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, dated November 21, 1962, finding the applicant to be a defective delinquent, after a hearing before Judge Barrett, sitting without a jury, and recommitting him to the Patuxent Institution as a defective delinquent.

In September 1956, the applicant was convicted of burglary and sentenced to the Maryland State Reformatory for Males *611 for a term of not exceeding three years. After being redetermined to be a defective delinquent, the applicant now contends that since he was convicted only once, he was not a proper subject for a defective delinquency proceeding.

Code (1962 Cum. Supp.), Article 31B, § 6, provides in part:

“A request may be made that a person be examined for possible defective delinquency if he has been convicted and sentenced in a court of this State for a crime or offense committed on or after June 1, 1954, coming under one or more of the following categories: (1) A felony; (2) a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary; * *

It matters not whether the applicant was convicted of common law burglary, a felony, or statutory burglary, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, since either crime would be within the provisions of the section quoted above, and subject the applicant to a proceeding for defective delinquency.

Application denied.

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

Related

Gee v. State
233 A.2d 336 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1967)
Gee v. State
212 A.2d 269 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1965)
Childress v. Director of Patuxent Institution
205 A.2d 294 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1964)
Morgan v. Director of Patuxent Institution
204 A.2d 553 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1964)
Porter v. Director of Patuxent Institution
193 A.2d 63 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
188 A.2d 565, 231 Md. 610, 1963 Md. LEXIS 496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gee-v-director-of-patuxent-institution-md-1963.