Chambers v. Director of Patuxent Institution

Per Curiam. On 17 January 1964 the applicant was tried in the Criminal Court of Baltimore (Harlan, J., without a jury), convicted of storehouse breaking and sentenced to the Maryland Institution for Men for a term of not more than one year. He was transferred to Patuxent Institution on 8 April 1964. On 31 March 1965 the Criminal Court of Baltimore (Cardin, J., without a jury) found him to be a defective delinquent as defined in Code, Art. 31 B (1957, Cum.

Supp. 1965). This application for leave to appeal from that finding was filed on 12 July 1965 and includes the following allegations: 1. That there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of defective delinquency. 2. That the decision was against the weight of the evidence, the only testimony for the State being that of Dr. Boslow, using reports of the Patuxent staff. 3.

That the admission in evidence of the applicant’s criminal record, which included convictions without benefit of counsel, was erroneous. 4. That the court had no jurisdiction because the applicant’s original sentence had expired. 5. That the psychological tests used were not shown to be valid or reliable. 6. That Art. 31 B is unconstitutional in toto and because it applies only to males. 7.

That the superintendent of the Maryland Institution for Men had no authority to recommend the applicant’s referral to Patuxent. In respect of the first, second and fifth contentions, concerning the evidence, the record shows that the staff and director of Patuxent concluded that the applicant qualified as a defective delinquent and this, particularly when combined with an exten ⁶⁹⁹ sive criminal record, has consistently been held to constitute sufficient basis for such a finding by the Court. Alt v. Director, 240 Md. 262 , 213 A. 2d 746 (1965). Moreover, the director’s testimony is admissible even though it is based on personal reports of members of his staff.

Ibid. The admissibility of applicant’s prior criminal record, including convictions without benefit of counsel, as evidence of prior anti-social behavior has been established in previous cases. Eaton v. Director, 240 Md. 35 , 212 A. 2d 497 (1965). The remaining contentions are also without merit.

Daugherty v.