GEE v. DIRECTOR, 231 Md. 610 (1963)

188 A.2d 565

GEE v. DIRECTOR OF PATUXENT INSTITUTION

[App. No. 56, September Term, 1962.]Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Decided March 8, 1963.

DEFECTIVE DELINQUENTS — Conviction Of Either Common-Law Burglary, A Felony, Or Of Statutory Burglary, A Misdemeanor Punishable By Imprisonment In Penitentiary, Subjects Applicant To Proceeding To Determine Defective Delinquency. pp. 610-611

J.E.B.

Decided March 8, 1963.

From a redetermination that he was a defective delinquent, Samuel Gee applied for leave to appeal.

Application denied.

Before BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an application for leave to appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, dated November 21, 1962, finding the applicant to be a defective delinquent, after a hearing before Judge Barrett, sitting without a jury, and recommitting him to the Patuxent Institution as a defective delinquent.

In September 1956, the applicant was convicted of burglary and sentenced to the Maryland State Reformatory for Males

Page 611

for a term of not exceeding three years. After being redetermined to be a defective delinquent, the applicant now contends that since he was convicted only once, he was not a proper subject for a defective delinquency proceeding.

Code (1962 Cum. Supp.), Article 31B, § 6, provides in part:

“A request may be made that a person be examined for possible defective delinquency if he has been convicted and sentenced in a court of this State for a crime or offense committed on or after June 1, 1954, coming under one or more of the following categories: (1) A felony; (2) a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary; * * *.”

It matters not whether the applicant was convicted of common law burglary, a felony, or statutory burglary, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, since either crime would be within the provisions of the section quoted above, and subject the applicant to a proceeding for defective delinquency.

Application denied.

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle
Tags: 188 A.2d 565

Recent Posts

NOTTINGHAM v. STATE, 135 A.3d 541 (2016)

135 A.3d 541 (2016)227 Md.App. 592 George Doran NOTTINGHAM v. STATE of Maryland. No. 1602,…

1 week ago

STATE v. SAYLES, 244 A.3d 1139 (Md. App. 2021)

244 A.3d 1139 (2021)472 Md. 207 STATE of Maryland v. Karon SAYLES. State of Maryland…

2 years ago

MILBURN v. STATE, 1 Md. 1 (1851)

Alexander Milburn and his Securities, vs. The State of Maryland. Dec. 1851 · Court of Appeals of…

3 years ago

HANDY v. COLLINS, 60 Md. 229 (1883)

John H. Handy vs. Frances C. Collins, Executrix of William H. Collins June 19, 1883 · Court…

3 years ago

CLOUGH v. MAYOR & COUNCIL OF HURLOCK, 445 A.3d 554 (2015)

127 A.3d 554 (2015)445 Md. 364 Kathleen CLOUGH v. MAYOR & COUNCIL OF HURLOCK. No.…

5 years ago

STOP SLOTS MD 2008 v. STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, 34 A.3d 1164 (2012)

34 A.3d 1164 (2012)424 Md. 163 STOP SLOTS MD 2008, et al. v. STATE BOARD…

7 years ago