Shine v. Director of Patuxent Institution

Per Curiam. The applicant pleaded guilty to burglary in the Criminal Court of Baltimore and on May 25, 1962, was sentenced to not more than two years in the Maryland State Reformatory for Males. On February 25, 1963, he was found to be a defective delinquent and committed to Patuxent Institution. He later filed a petition for re-determination and on November 19, 1965, a hearing was held before Judge Cardin, sitting without a jury, who found that the applicant was still a defective delinquent and recommitted him to Patuxent Institution.

An application for leave to appeal and a memorandum in support thereof have been filed on behalf of the applicant by his court appointed attorney, based upon the following contentions: 1. That the State’s only witness, Dr. Boslow, based his testimony on a very brief examination of the applicant and in part on the conclusions of other experts who were not present in the courtroom. 2. That an investigation of the evidence shows the verdict to be erroneous. 3. That the evidence was legally insufficient to support the finding of defective delinquency. 4.

That Dr. Boslow’s testimony was hearsay. 5. That the applicant has served a six year term, while his original sentence was for not more than two years. With regard to applicant’s contentions-1 and 4 it is now well established that the director of Patuxent need not