Davis v. Director of Patuxent Institution

Per Curiam. The applicant, having been convicted of assault with intent to rob and sentenced to three years in the Maryland House of Correction, was found by a jury to be a defective delinquent within the meaning of Code, Art. 31B (1957, Cum. Supp. 1965). He was committed to Patuxent Institution.

On 5 April 1965 a redetermination of defective delinquency was made in the Criminal Court of Baltimore (Cardin, J., sitting without a jury) and this application for leave to appeal was filed thereafter. It contains the following allegations : 1. That the commitment violates the constitutional rights of the applicant with respect to due process generally and cruel and unusual punishment. ⁷³⁶ 2. That Art. 31B constitutes an ex post facto law and bill of attainder. 3.

That the indeterminate sentence violates Md. Const, art. 3, § 60. 4. That the psychiatric examinations violates the constitutional privilege against self incrimination. 5. That the statutory language is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous. 6. That despite the applicant’s refusal to see the psychiatrist appointed by the court at his request, he did not waive his right to and should have had the benefit of such examination. 7.

That the inclusion in his medical report of an