Perkerson v. Director

174 A.2d 436, 226 Md. 666, 1961 Md. LEXIS 448
Court of Appeals of Maryland·Decided October 19, 1961·No. [App. No. 19, September Term, 1961.]·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

226 Md. 666 (1961)
174 A.2d 436

PERKERSON
v.
DIRECTOR OF PATUXENT INSTITUTION

[App. No. 19, September Term, 1961.]

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Decided October 19, 1961.

Before HENDERSON, HAMMOND, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.

PER CURIAM:

In this case Perkerson petitioned the court below for redetermination of his status as a defective delinquent. Counsel was appointed upon his affidavit that he was without funds, and he elected trial before the court. After a hearing, he was found to be still a defective delinquent and recommitted. He noted an appeal, which the court treated as an application for leave to appeal under Code (1960 Supp.), Art. 31B, sec. 11. There was no attempt, however, to comply with Maryland Rule 894-2 (a), which provides: "The application shall contain a concise statement of the reasons why the order should be reversed or modified, and shall include a list of the errors allegedly committed by the lower court." In the absence of any specification of errors, there is nothing before us to review.

Application denied.

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

Perkerson v. Director, 174 A.2d 436, 226 Md. 666, 1961 Md. LEXIS 448 (Md. 1961).

174 A.2d 436 (Perkerson v. Director) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wisner v. Director of Patuxent Institution
185 A.2d 387 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1962)
Polaski v. Director of Patuxent Institution
184 A.2d 623 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1962)