Savage v. Director, Patuxent Institution

Per Curiam. On 30 November 1962 the applicant was convicted of seven offenses of burglary and sentenced to one year in the Maryland House of Correction on each, the sentences to run consecutively. On the same date he was ordered to be taken to Patuxent Institution for examination and evaluation. On 29 May 1964 he was determined to be a defective delinquent and committed to Patuxent Institution.

On 31 May 1967 in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, he was again determined to be a defective delinquent. He seeks leave to appeal from that redetermination. ² The applicant’s three allegations go to the weight and sufficiency of the evidence on which he was redetermined to be a defective delinquent. We do not have a transcript of the proceedings of the hearing but the record contains a report of examination made by a psychiatrist at the applicant’s request. It includes the following statement of the examining psychiatrist: “* * * I believe that he has shown definite improvement but I do not feel that this improvement is sufficient at this time to materially change his status.

I hope that he can be reexamined in about a year or so because I feel that he needs further treatment in a structural environment. I hope that he can be given more privileges and perhaps be advanced to the 4th level and given a chance under much less restricted security during this time.” The Court of Appeals said in Simmons v. Director, 227 Md. 661 , 664: “It is claimed that admission of the testimony of the psychiatrists and other physicians who