Daniels v. Director, Patuxent Inst.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
• Citation: 206 A.2d 726,238 Md. 80
• Docket Number: No. 66,66
• Parties: Samuel DANIELS v. DIRECTOR, PATUXENT INSTITUTION. Defective Delinquent
• Decision Date: 05 February 1965

Page 80

238 Md. 80

206 A.2d 726

Samuel DANIELS v. DIRECTOR, PATUXENT INSTITUTION.

Defective Delinquent No. 66.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Feb. 5, 1965.

Before PRESCOTT, C. J., and HAMMOND, HORNEY, MARBURY, SYBERT, OPPENHEIMER, and BARNES, JJ.

HORNEY, Judge.

This is an application for leave to appeal from the order of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County recommitting Samuel Daniels to Patuxent Institution after the finding by a jury that he was still a defective delinquent as defined by Code (1964 Cum.Supp.), Art. 31B, § 5.

The applicant, who is twenty-four years old and has no known relatives, was taken in protective custody as an infant and lived in foster homes during most of his early childhood. Since then he has been confined from time to time in Boys' Village, State Reformatory for Males and Patuxent Institution. He has a history of stealing money and other property from his foster parents and from inmates of the institutions in which he resided. When he was about fourteen he attempted to have sexual relations with a seven year old girl. The institutional records further indicate that he has continued to be somewhat of a 'sexual problem.'

Six years ago the applicant pled guilty to store house breaking and larceny and was sentenced to an indeterminate term not exceeding three years in the Reformatory from which he was subsequently transferred to Patuxent for examination. Sometime later a jury found him to be a defective delinquent. During the initial period of his confinement and treatment at Patuxent, he was promoted from time to time until he reached the fourth tier, which is the tier inmates must reach to be eligible for probationary or final release, but he was subsequently demoted to a lower tier. Whether he thereafter regained fourth tier status is not clear from the record.

Whatever his status may have been at the time of the redetermination hearing, the medical records of the institution and the depositions of staff personnel--a psychiatrist and a psychologist--show that the applicant, as the jury found, is not yet ready to be released. Within the statutory definition, the applicant exhibits 'intellectual deficiency' in that he has an I.Q. of 76. There is also substantial evidence of 'emotional unbalance' due to his low intellectual level and his lack of control over his 'explosive and aggressive impulses.' The psychiatrist was of the opinion that 'in spite of some gains he has made more recently in terms of behavior, he remains a very impulsive, bitter, suspicious and thoughtless individual with a poor prognosis for rehabilitation.'

The applicant assigned several reasons why he should have been released.

The contentions that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the evidence and the weight of the evidence are clearly without merit. There was ample evidence to support the verdict of the jury and the weight of it was not available as a ground for leave to appeal. Silvestri v. Director, 234 Md. 641, 199 A.2d 784 (1964); Cooper v. Director, 234 Md. 622, 198 A.2d 301 (1964).

The contention that the testimony of the psychiatrist to the effect that the inmate would be unable to earn a livelihood should not have been received, is likewise without merit. Whether or not the inmate could be safely released into society without reverting to anti-social behavior necessarily involved his ability to get a job and hold it. While speculation as to his future economic potential...