Bullock v. Director of Patuxent Institution

• Decision Date: 15 May 1963
• Docket Number: No. 60,60
• Citation: 190 A.2d 789,231 Md. 629
• Parties: Donald BULLOCK v. DIRECTOR OF PATUXENT INSTITUTION.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 629

231 Md. 629

190 A.2d 789

Donald BULLOCK v. DIRECTOR OF PATUXENT INSTITUTION.

No. 60.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

May 15, 1963.

BRUNE, C. J., and PRESCOTT, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.

PRESCOTT, Judge.

This is an application for leave to appeal from an order of the Criminal Court of Baltimore, after jury verdict, committing applicant to the Patuxent Institution as a defective delinquent. This order was dated November 20, 1962. After being found guilty of several criminal offenses and being sentenced therefor in October, 1960, applicant has flooded the state trial courts, the Federal Courts and this Court with a number of lengthy petitions and applications. These include at least seven petitions for writs of habeas corpus; petition for change of venue on defective delinquency and an appeal to this Court on the ruling relative to such change of venue; petition under U.P.C.P.A. as to his original convictions; and this 22 page petition for leave to appeal, supplemented by some five attempts to add to the same.

Many of his contentions are repetitious, and a number of them attempt to set forth errors in the trial courts in trials which resulted in his original convictions and in refusing his many petitions for writs of habeas corpus. Errors in original convictions may be raised by direct appeal, but not by way of application for leave to appeal from a commitment for defective delinquency; and there is no appeal in Maryland from the denial of release after hearing on habeas corpus. Hence, these contentions will not be answered separately and individually. We shall take up all of his remaining contentions that have a semblance of substance and answer them.

He complains that he was not tried as a defective delinquent before the expiration of his original sentence, although he had been sent to Patuxent long before such expiration. (It may not be inappropriate to mention that the delay in his trial on the question of defective delinquency was due, in large part, to legal maneuvers of the applicant.) The same complaint was made and rejected in Roberts v. Director, 226 Md. 643, 172 A.2d 880. ¹

He states that it was error to admit into evidence his past record as shown by the records of the juvenile and magistrate's courts. Evidence of prior anti-social behavior is admissible in cases of this nature. Height v. State, 225 Md. 251, 170 A.2d 212.

He alleges a violation of his rights under Code (1957), Article 31B, § 4(c)(2) when his status as 'a possible defective delinquent' was determined as of February 28, 1961 (there is nothing in the record to substantiate this other than the bald statement of the applicant), but the report was not filed until August 1, 1961, and he was not served with a copy thereof. The above statute did provide that Patuxent should 'promptly' file a report with the court when it believed a person to be a possible defective delinquent, and serve a copy upon said person. However, because of the result we reach at the end of this opinion, we find it unnecessary to determine whether applicant was prejudiced by this contention (even if true), and we leave the question open.

He claims that after his original sentence expired, he was entitled to bail. There is nothing in the record to show he requested bail; there is nothing in Article 31B which authorizes bail for a person being held at Patuxent; and, since the proceedings against an alleged defective delinquent are civil in nature, it would be improper to require bail of such a person pending trial.

He contends that the trial court abused its discretion in not granting a postponement of his trial set for November 5, 1962. The thrust of this complaint is that he wanted to change counsel and the court would not postpone the trial date so as 'to allow counsel not less than 30 days to prepare his case.' Article 31B, § 8(b). The short answer to this claim is that the granting of a postponement of trial is, generally, in the discretion of the trial court. Although he obtained additional counsel shortly before the trial, the applicant actually had counsel of record from August 20, to November 5, 1962, some two and one-half months.

He also contends his counsel was incompetent. We do not review the effectiveness, vel non, of the trial tactics of lawyers; and ineptitude of counsel is not reviewable, even in a criminal prosecution, unless the incompetence of counsel was so great as to have made a farce out of the proceedings. Faulkner v. Director, 230 Md. 632, 187 A.2d 473. It may be noted at this point that the psychiatrist selected by the applicant to examine him stated, '* * * in my opinion, [he] meets the criteria for defective delinquency and should be committed to Patuxent.'

The trial below was held on November 5, 1962. Prior thereto, the Criminal Court of Baltimore had ordered the case removed to Howard County for trial. This was on, or about, December 30, 1961. The State moved to remand the cases to the Criminal ...