From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Montgomery v. Director

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jul 29, 1964
202 A.2d 758 (Md. 1964)

Opinion

[App. No. 151, September Term, 1963.]

Decided July 29, 1964.

POST CONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT — Is Not A Means Of Obtaining A Belated Appeal In A Defective Delinquency Case, Where No Showing Was Made Of Denial Of Right To Appeal Or To Seek Leave To Appeal, Or That Applicant Had Made Any Effort To Do So Within Time Allowed By Law, Which Had Long Since Expired — Applicant Was Fully Advised As To Procedure To Seek To Perfect Appeal — No Actual Need Or Use For Transcript Of Defective Delinquency Proceedings Was Suggested Or Apparent. p. 673

Decided July 29, 1964.

Robert Montgomery instituted a proceeding under the Post Conviction Procedure Act, and from a denial of relief, he applied for leave to appeal.

Application denied.

Before the entire Court.


For the reasons stated by Judge Sodaro for denying relief under the Post Conviction Procedure Act in his order filed in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, the application for leave to appeal is denied. We may add that no actual need or use for a transcript of the proceedings in which the applicant was determined to be a defective delinquent has been suggested or is apparent. The time for seeking leave to appeal from that determination had expired long before the present proceedings were filed, and the applicant was fully advised as to procedure to seek to perfect an appeal. The Post Conviction Procedure Act is not a means of obtaining a belated appeal when the applicant made no showing that he was denied a right to appeal or to seek leave to appeal or that he made any effort to do so within the time allowed by law. Krs v. Director, 230 Md. 646, 187 A.2d 871.

Application denied.


Summaries of

Montgomery v. Director

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jul 29, 1964
202 A.2d 758 (Md. 1964)
Case details for

Montgomery v. Director

Case Details

Full title:MONTGOMERY v . DIRECTOR OF PATUXENT INSTITUTION

Court:Court of Appeals of Maryland

Date published: Jul 29, 1964

Citations

202 A.2d 758 (Md. 1964)
202 A.2d 758

Citing Cases

Wilson v. State

It was meet, therefore, that there be exceptions to the general rule that a post conviction proceeding may…

Kelly v. Warden

In addition, applicant claims that Judge Harris (who presided at his non-jury trial) was biased and that his…