Knox v. Director, Patuxent Institution

Per Curiam. On August 17, 1966, Dexter R. Knox was found guilty of burglary and sentenced to two years in the Maryland House of Correction. On August 30, 1966, he was ordered to Patuxent Institution for examination to determine whether he was a defective delinquent. On January 18, 1967, applicant’s petition ⁶⁸⁰ for relief under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act was dismissed in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Judge E. Mackall Childs presiding.

Application for leave to appeal was filed on January 30, 1967. In his petition, applicant sets forth five contentions dealing with his trial and with his referral to Patuxent Institution. In his application for leave to appeal, applicant elaborates upon his original contentions. Summarized, they are: 1.

That he is being denied his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by the Director of Patuxent Institution. 2. That he is being denied his right to counsel while at Patuxent for examination. 3. That he was not advised of his right to appeal by the judge or by his court-appointed counsel. 4. That he requested his court-appointed counsel to file an appeal, but he failed to do so. 5.

That he was illegally arrested and subjected to an unlawful search and seizure. The first two contentions do not, either directly or indirectly, challenge the legality of applicant’s judgment of conviction and hence are not properly cognizable under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act. 1 Applicant’s third and fourth contentions, concerning the right to appeal, are clearly contradictory. It is settled that failure to ⁶⁸¹ advise, whether by counsel or by court, of right to appeal is not ground for relief. Nixon v.