Perkerson v. Director of Patuxent Institution
This text of 226 Md. 666 (Perkerson 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 case Perkerson petitioned the court below for re-determination 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. 3 IB, 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
226 Md. 666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perkerson-v-director-of-patuxent-institution-md-1961.