Carter v. Director, Patuxent Institution

Per Curiam. • James E. M. Carter, the applicant, applies for leave to appeal from an order of February 6,1970, by Judge James K. Cullen, sitting with a jury, in the Criminal Court of Baltimore. determining applicant to be a defective delinquent as defined in Md. Code, Art. 31B § 5.. Applicant was originally convicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore on May 4, 1961, of two indictments for armed robbery, before Judge Cullen sitting without a jury, and two consecutive five year sentences were imposed. On June 11, 1963, applicant was transferred from the Department of Correction to the custody of the Director of Patuxent Institution for examination to determine whether or not he was a defective delinquent. Between 1963 and December 10, 1969, the trial of applicant was postponed three times at the request of the defense.

Also during that time period, applicant was frequently and extensively in Clifton T. Perkins State Hospital. On December 10, 1969, applicant pleaded he was not a defective delinquent and a jury trial was held before Judge Cullen; interval.notes from the staff at Patuxent Institution concluding applicant, was still a defective delinquent were filed. A mistrial was ordered by Judge Cullen when the jury could not reach a verdict. On February 5, 1970, applicant again pleaded he was not a defective delinquent and prayed a jury trial before Judge Cullen.

Interval notes from Patuxent Institution were again filed, again concluding that applicant ²⁴⁹ was still a defective delinquent. On February 6, 1970, the jury found that applicant was a defective delinquent and an order was filed by Judge Cullen committing the applicant to the Patuxent Institution as a defective delinquent. Application for leave to appeal was properly filed and counsel appointed to represent the applicant. Applicant raises a total of five contentions, contending: (1) the hearing determining him to be a defective delinquent was unconstitutional; (2) his counsel was incompetent; (8) he, a pauper, should have received a transcript of his proceedings; (4) the same judge that presided at his armed robbery trial should not preside at his defective delinquency hearing; and (5) he should not be retained in custody after the expiration of his armed robbery sentences.

In the first contention, applicant emphasizes that it was over eight years from the time that he was first sent to Patuxent Institution until he was determined to be a defective delinquent. The constitutional right to a speedy trial does not apply to defective delinquency proceedings since they are civil