Alt v. Director

²⁶³ Horney, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an application for leave to appeal from an order of the lower court dated January 4, 1965, recommitting Donald Francis Alt to Patuxent Institution after a determination by the court, sitting without a jury, that the applicant was still a defective delinquent within the meaning of Section 5 of Article 31B of the Code (1964 Cum. Supp.). The applicant was convicted of assault and robbery and was sentenced on September 26, 1958, to consecutive terms of eighteen months in the Maryland State Reformatory, the sentences to run from March 17, 1958.

On the date of sentencing the court also signed an order sending the applicant to Patuxent for evaluation. On September 14, 1960, the applicant was originally found to be a defective delinquent. In this application for leave to appeal from the order recommitting him to Patuxent, the applicant made four contentions : (1) that the verdict was erroneous and against the weight of the evidence; (2) that the evidence was not sufficient to support the findings of the hearing judge; (3) that the testimony produced by the petitioner showed that Patuxent did not afford the treatment required by him; and (4) 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 personal knowledge. The first two contentions are without merit.

The record shows that the director of Patuxent (Dr. Boslow), as well as the applicant’s own psychiatrist (Dr. Levin), were of the opinion that the applicant was still a defective delinquent as defined in the statute. This Court has held on a number of occasions that the conclusions of the staff at Patuxent, including the opinion of the director, constitute a sufficient basis to justify a finding that the applicant is still a defective delinquent. Murel v. Director, 240 Md. 258 , 213 A. 2d 576 (1965) ; Oppel v. Director, 237 Md. 611 , 205 A. 2d 396 (1964). It is also settled that when a case has been tried by a lower court without a jury, which is the situation in the present