Creswell v. Director, Patuxent Institution

Orth, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On March 17, 1959, applicant was found to be a defective delinquent by the Circuit Court for Cecil County and com ⁹ mitted to Patuxent Institution. On December 20, 1961, on hearing in that court upon petition filed by him for review it was redetermined that he was a defective delinquent. On April 13, 1965, he filed a second petition for review in the Circuit Court for Cecil County and on hearing on January 25, 1966, it was determined by a jury that he was a defective delinquent and by order the same date of Judge George B. Rasin, Jr., he was committed, for an indeterminate period, to the Patuxent Institution.

On January 28, 1966, the applicant, by his attorney, filed a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto or in the alternative, a new trial. On March 7, 1966, on hearing, Judge George B. Rasin, Jr., overruled the motion. On April 6, 1966, applicant, by his attorney, filed application for leave to appeal from the order of January 25, 1966, in which the only allegation of error was the “Exhibition of Defendant before Jury in handcuffs without adequate justification”. Code (1957) Art. 31B, Sec. 11 and Maryland Rule 894 a 1, requires that application for leave to appeal be filed within thirty (30) days from the passage of the order appealed from.

This application for leave to appeal was not filed within thirty days from January 25, 1966, the date of the passage of the order appealed from. There remains consideration of the question whether the filing of a motion for judgment N.O.V. and motion for a new trial extends the time for filing. In Austin v. Director, 245 Md. 206 , 225 A. 2d 466 (1967) the Court of Appeals said, with reference to new trials in defective delinquent proceedings, “We think it clear