Colbert v. Director of Patuxent Institution

Horney, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This application for leave to appeal from a recommitment order by the lower court after a second determination of the status of the applicant as a defective delinquent was remanded in Colbert v. Director, 232 Md. 634 , for further proceedings. A ⁶⁴⁰ determination having been made upon remand that the applicant was an indigent, the application, through inadvertance, was sent back to this Court, whereupon the case was again remanded under an order directing the lower court to allow the applicant to proceed as an indigent and to appoint counsel to represent him in connection with his application for leave to appeal. . In an amended application prepared by his court-appointed counsel, the applicant alleges: (1) that the finding of the lower court was against the clear weight of the evidence since the applicant produced witnesses and testimony extremely favorable to him; and (2) that the evidence was legally insufficient to support a finding of defective delinquency because the only testimony showing that he was still a defective delinquent was given by the director of Patuxent after a recent examination lasting only a short time.

Both of the assigned reasons for granting leave to appeal are without merit. The first contention relates to and bears only on the weight of the evidence, as distinguished from its sufficiency to support the finding of the lower court, and is therefore not available as a