Robinson v. Director, Patuxent Institution
| Decision Date | 20 February 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 39,39 |
| Citation | 3 Md.App. 222,238 A.2d 124 |
| Parties | John C. ROBINSON v. DIRECTOR, PATUXENT INSTITUTION. Post Conviction |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.
This is an application for leave to appeal from an order of April 11, 1967, of Judge William J. O'Donnell, presiding in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, denying relief sought under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act after an evidentiary hearing.
Applicant was sentenced on June 20, 1961, to a term of not more than eight years on each of four convictions of common law robbery, the sentences to run concurrently. On that date, he was ordered to be committed to Patuxent Institution for examination as a possible defective delinquent as defined by Md. Code (1957), Art. 31B, § 5. Applicant was found to be a defective delinquent at a hearing in the Criminal Court of Baltimore on September 14, 1962, and was committed to Patuxent Institution. On May 14, 1966, applicant prayed for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in the Baltimore City Court. The writ was denied by order filed on August 14, 1966.
The application is denied for the reasons set forth in the memorandum of Judge O'Donnell accompanying the order with one exception. At the hearing, applicant's counsel alleged that the applicant was 'not then taking treatment at Patuxent'. Judge O'Donnell correctly found that such an allegation cannot be raised under the U.P.C.P.A. He said, however, that since such an allegation is irrelevant to a re-determination hearing as to defective delinquency, it was analogously 'irrelevant on stronger grounds in a post conviction proceeding.' We note that in Daniels v. Director, 238 Md. 80, 206 A.2d 726, Alt. v. Director, 240 Md. 262, 213 A.2d 746 and Director of Patuxent Institution v. Daniels, 243 Md. 16, 221 A.2d 397, the issue of whether appropriate treatment at Patuxent Institution was being given to the inmate was raised and considered on a re-determination hearing where the constitutionality of the Defective Delinquent Act was attacked. The lower court also stated that habeas corpus was not a proper remedy for a review as to complaints of medical treatment, citing Warfield v. Raymond, 195 Md. 711, 71 A.2d 870, State ex rel. Baldwin v. Supt. of Maryland State Reformatory for Males, 192 Md. 712, 63 A.2d 323, and State ex rel. Jacobs v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, 190 Md. 755, 59 A.2d 753. We note that the cited...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McCray
...clause of the Fourteenth Amendment' was not properly cognizable under the Act. At 143-144, 233 A.2d at 377. In Robinson v. Director, 3 Md.App. 222, 238 A.2d 124 (1968), it held that a contention that a Patuxent detainee was 'not then taking treatment at Patuxent' may not be raised in a post......
-
Curtis v. State
...the validity or the original judgment are properly cognizable. Cf. Creswell v. Director, 2 Md.App. 142, 233 A.2d 375; Robinson v. Director, 3 Md.App. 222, 238 A.2d 124. The effective assistance of counsel at the post conviction level is not an issue in and of itself, but it may be at least ......
-
Wilson v. State
...as a basis for post conviction petition review. E. g., Curtis v. State, 37 Md.App. 459, 463, 381 A.2d 1166; 3 Robinson v. Director, 3 Md.App. 222, 224, 238 A.2d 124; Creswell v. Director, 2 Md.App. 142, 144-145, 233 A.2d 375; Knox v. Director, 1 Md.App. 678, 680, 232 A.2d 824 cert. dismisse......