Murel v. Director, Patuxent Inst., 135
| Decision Date | 20 October 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 135,135 |
| Citation | 213 A.2d 576,240 Md. 258 |
| Parties | Albert Delane MUREL v. DIRECTOR, PATUXENT INSTITUTION. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Before PRESCOTT, C. J., and HAMMOND, HORNEY, MARBURY and BARNES, JJ.
This is an application for leave to appeal from the order of the Criminal Court of Baltimore dated December 21, 1964, recommitting Albert Delane Murel to Patuxent Institution after a jury had determined that he was still a defective delinquent within the meaning of § 5 of Article 31B of the Code (1964 Cum.Supp.).
The applicant was convicted of burglary and sentenced on February 5, 1962, to a term of one year in the Maryland State Reformatory dating from December 10, 1961. On April 12, 1962, the applicant was transferred to Patuxent for evaluation at the request of the Department of Correction. On November 30, 1962, the applicant was found to be a defective delinquent by Judge Byrnes sitting without a jury. The application for leave to appeal from the initial determination of defective delinquency was denied by this Court in Murel v. Director, 231 Md. 661, 191 A.2d 445 (1963).
In the interim between the initial defective delinquent hearing and the redetermination hearing, the applicant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, seeking his release from Patuxent on the grounds, primarily, that the defective delinquent law violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, subjected him to double jeopardy and compelled him to be a witness against himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The petition was denied without a hearing and upon appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the case was consolidated with a number of other cases generally known as the Consolidated Sas Cases. The decision in those cases is reported in Sas v. State of Maryland, 334 F.2d 506 (4th Cir. 1964).
In this application for leave to appeal from the order recommiting him to Patuxent, the applicant raised only three contentions: (i) that the finding of the jury was against the weight of the evidence; (ii) that his testimony conclusively showed that he was ready to resume his role in society; and (iii) that the sole witness for the State (Dr. Harold M. Boslow) was allowed to testify as to the conclusions reached by others and not from first hand knowledge. But when he filed his memorandum in support of his application for leave to appeal, the applicant raised a number of questions concerning the constitutionality of the defective delinquent law in general, and a specific issue as to whether he, as one of the inmates of Patuxent, was receiving effectual treatment for his defective delinquency. Although he was aware of the fact that the additional issues he sought to raise were not specifically raised below, the applicant, apparently relying on our decision in Daniels v. Director, 238 Md. 80, 206 A.2d 726 (1965), in which we granted Daniels leave to appeal on the question as to whether his continued detention at Patuxent was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sas v. State of Maryland
...record of the proceedings, shall make explicit findings of fact and expressly state his conclusions of law." In Murel v. Director, 1965, 240 Md. 258, 213 A.2d 576, the Maryland Court of Appeals elaborated on the scope of the hearing to be had in the Daniels remand. Murel had raised various ......
-
Director of Patuxent Institution v. Daniels
...U. S. Supreme Court decisions, the legal result [221 A.2d 405] may be inconsistent with previous State decisions. See Murel v. Director, 240 Md. 258, 213 A.2d 576 (1965). After the three year period provided in the statute had expired, Daniels petitioned for a determination as to whether he......
-
McDonough v. State, 192
...in this opinion, and to the authorities already cited we would add, Gray v. Director, 245 Md. 80, 224 A.2d 879 (1966); Murel v. Director, 240 Md. 258, 213 A.2d 576 (1965); Blakney v. Director, 239 Md. 704, 211 A.2d 734 (1965); Blann v. Director, 235 Md. 661, 202 A.2d 722 Finally, as was sta......
-
Gray v. Director, Patuxent Institution
...Dr. Boslow's testimony is not inadmissible because it relies in part on the reports of other members of his staff. Murel v. Director, 240 Md. 258, 213 A.2d 576 (1965); Gilliard v. Director, 237 Md. 661, 207 A.2d 650 (1965). The applicant had the right to summon any of the persons whose name......