Herrman v. Director of Patuxent Institution
| Decision Date | 15 June 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 52,52 |
| Parties | Jack L. HERRMAN v. DIRECTOR OF the PATUXENT INSTITUTION. Application |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.
The applicant, Jack L. Herrman, who had been sentenced to imprisonment for robbery with a deadly weapon, was found by a jury to be a defective delinquent and he now seeks leave to appeal from that determination. The applicant, who comes from a broken home, has an extensive record of unlawful activity beginning at the age of ten. He is now eighteen.
The State argues that the present application, filed on February 16, 1962, should be dismissed since it was not filed within thirty days from the passage on October 27, 1961, of the order appealed from. Code (1961 Cum.Supp.), Art. 31B Sec. 11. However, on November 25, 1961, within the thirty day period, the applicant wrote a letter to the trial court concerning appeal, which, though deficient in form, was treated as an application for leave to appeal and the record was forwarded to this Court. We shall therefore treat the application of February 16, 1962, as supplementary to the November 25, 1961, application, and consider the matter. Cf. Ambrose v. Director, 224 Md. 656, 167 A.2d 103 (1961).
The applicant has raised numerous contentions all of which have been found to be without merit.
He has made several bald allegations as to the unconstitutionality of the defective delinquent statute, Code (1957 ed., 1961 Cum.Supp.), Art. 31B, and in addition challenges it on the ground that it permits double jeopardy and cruel and unusual punishment, and violates the equal protection clause as well as the prohibitions against ex post facto laws and self-incrimination. All these constitutional objections were raised and rejected in Simmons v. Director, 227 Md. 661, 177 A.2d 409 (1962), and are rejected here.
In addition, the applicant states he was tried for a civil 'offense' by a criminal procedure. The record shows that the procedure employed was in accordance with the statute and if applicant's statement was meant to imply that the defective delinquency proceeding is criminal in nature, we will reiterate that it clearly is not. The same answer applies to applicant's next contention, that he should be held only on definite proof of a specific offense. No issue of guilt or innocence of a crime is involved, the sole question being whether or not the person...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Director, Patuxent Inst.
...denied, 374 U.S. 851, 83 S.Ct. 1917, 10 L.Ed.2d 1072 (1963) (Sixth Amendment sright to speedy trial not applicable); Herrman v. Director, 229 Md. 613, 182 A.2d 351 (1962) (privilege against self-incrimination not applicable; no double jeopardy; and not an ex post facto law); Simmons v. Dire......
-
Monroe v. Director, Patuxent Institution
...177 A.2d 409 (1962); McDonough v. Director of Patuxent Institution, 229 Md. 626, 186 A.2d 368 (1962); Herrman v. Director of Patuxent Institution, 229 Md. 613, 182 A.2d 351 (1962); Creswell v. Director of Patuxent Institution, 229 Md. 639, 184 A.2d 627 (1962); and Monroe v. Director of Patu......
-
Wise v. Director, Patuxent Institution
...properly before us an appeal and may be denied for that reason. Rule 1085; Crews v. Director, 245 Md. 174, 225 A.2d 436; Herrman v. Director, 229 Md. 613, 182 A.2d 351; McDonough v. Director, 229 Md. 626, 183 A.2d 368. The fourth contention may also be denied for the same reason, in that th......
-
Crews v. Director, Patuxent Institution
...is that they were not made below, and therefore, cannot be considered on this application for leave to appeal. Herrman v. Director, 229 Md. 613, 182 A.2d 351 (1962); McDonough v. Director, 229 Md. 626, 183 A.2d 368 (1962); Elliott v. Director, 232 Md. 615, 192 A.2d 501 (1963). Contrary to t......