Marshall v. Director of Patuxent Institution, 39
| Decision Date | 22 January 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 39,39 |
| Citation | 137 A.2d 661,215 Md. 622 |
| Parties | Isaac S. MARSHALL v. DIRECTOR OF PATUXENT INSTITUTION. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
Isaac S. Marshall desires leave to appeal from a denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus by Judge Warnken in the Baltimore City Court. He was convicted of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and sentenced to one year in the Maryland House of Correction on November 3, 1955. On November 9, 1955, it was ordered that he be transferred to the Patuxent Institution for the purpose of examination to determine whether he were a defective delinquent, as defined by Code (1951), Article 31B.
His petition for a writ of habeas corpus was received by the Baltimore City Court on July 31, 1957, at which time he was being detained pending his trial for being a defective delinquent. After the court had continued the case several times at the request of the defendant, on August 5, 1957, he was tried in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, and convicted of being a defective delinquent. On the same day, an order was passed committing him to the Patuxent Institution; and it is by authority of this order that he is now being confined. It is, therefore, obvious that the question of the legality of his incarceration as of July 31, 1957, the date when his petition for a writ of habeas corpus was received by the Baltimore City Court, is now moot.
Application denied with costs
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gee v. State
...which Appellant raises with respect to his right to counsel is moot. In support of its argument the State relies upon Marshall v. Director, 215 Md. 622, 137 A.2d 661 (1958). In Marshall, the appellant had filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on July 31, 1957, at which time he was be......
-
Otten v. Director, Patuxent Inst.
...question was moot because of Otten's commitment to Patuxent under a civil proceeding. He relied principally on Marshall v. Director, 215 Md. 622, 137 A.2d 661 (1958). In Gee v. State, 239 Md. 604, 212 A.2d 269 (1965), this Court recently pointed out that no question of the deprivation of an......
-
Daugherty v. Director, Patuxent Inst.
...was rejected in Bullock v. Director, 231 Md. 629, 190 A.2d 789; Roberts v. Director, 226 Md. 643, 172 A.2d 880, and Marshall v. Director, 215 Md. 622, 137 A.2d 661. 2. References to prior conviction as a basis for his commitment to Patuxent Institution constitutes an ex post facto law viola......
-
Faulcon v. Director, Patuxent Inst.
...proceedings which led to his criminal conviction. Judge Cardin denied the petition on December 5, 1963. Relying on Marshall v. Director, 215 Md. 623, 137 A.2d 661 (1958), he held that the validity of Faulcon's criminal conviction was moot since he had been found to be a defective delinquent......