DEFECTIVE DELINQUENTS — Claims That Statute Is Unconstitutional, And That Applicant Was Placed In Double Jeopardy, Held Without Merit Upon Basis Of Prior Cases. p. 632
DEFECTIVE DELINQUENTS — No Merit To Claim That Applicant Did Not Fit Description Of — Staff Of Patuxent Institution And Independent Psychiatrist Chosen By Applicant Found Him To Be A Defective Delinquent Under Statutory Tests. pp. 632-633
J.E.B.
Decided July 15, 1963.
PER CURIAM.
In this application for leave to appeal a finding by the Criminal Court of Baltimore that he was a defective delinquent within the meaning of Code (1957), Art. 31B, § 5, the applicant, Lester E. Williams, alleges that: (1) the defective delinquent statute, Code (1957), Art. 31B, is "arbitrary and oppressive," "an attempt to subvert the United States Constitution" and an ex post facto law, and therefore unconstitutional; (2) he was placed in double jeopardy by the finding of defective delinquency; and (3) he does not fit the description of a defective delinquent.
The first two contentions both were raised and rejected in McDonough v. Director, 229 Md. 626; Simmons v. Director, 227 Md. 661; and Eggleston v. State, 209 Md. 504.
The answer to the third contention is that the staff of the Patuxent Institution and an independent psychiatrist of applicant's own choice (appointed in accordance with Code (1957), Art. 31B, § 7(b)), found the applicant to be a defective delinquent under the statutory tests.
Application denied.