From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miller v. Director

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jan 6, 1967
225 A.2d 265 (Md. 1967)

Opinion

[App. No. 48, September Term, 1965.]

Decided January 6, 1967.

DEFECTIVE DELINQUENTS — Bald Allegation Of A Denial Of Constitutional Rights Is Not A Ground For Appeal. p. 737

DEFECTIVE DELINQUENTS — Questions As To The Weight Of The Evidence In Jury Cases Are Not Proper For Consideration In Applications For Leave To Appeal. p. 737

DEFECTIVE DELINQUENTS — Applicant's Contention That He Was Entitled To Relief Because The Members Of The Jury Were Required To Affirm A Belief In God Was Rejected. p. 737

H.C.

Decided January 6, 1967.

Application for leave to appeal from the Circuit Court for Frederick County (CLAPP, J.).

From a finding that he was a defective delinquent, Grover Ross Miller applied for leave to appeal.

Application denied.

Before HAMMOND, C.J., and HORNEY, OPPENHEIMER, BARNES and McWILLIAMS, JJ.


Grover Ross Miller was convicted of malicious destruction of property in the Circuit Court for Frederick County and on October 8, 1963, was sentenced to a term of one year in the Maryland Correctional Institution. On February 23, 1965, after delays caused by changes in court-appointed counsel, Miller was adjudged by a jury in the Circuit Court for Frederick County (Robert E. Clapp, Jr., J.) to be a defective delinquent. He seeks leave to appeal from this determination, urging in support of his application (1) that his constitutional rights were violated at the defective delinquency hearing, (2) that the verdict of the jury was against the weight of the evidence, and (3) that the members of the jury were required to affirm a belief in God.

As to the applicant's first contention, "a bald allegation of a denial of constitutional rights is not a ground for appeal * * *" Fraley v. Director, 243 Md. 693, 694, 221 A.2d 907 (1966), and cases therein cited.

The second contention is likewise without merit. It has consistently been held that questions as to the weight of the evidence in jury cases are not proper for consideration in applications for leave to appeal. Caplin v. Director, 244 Md. 103, 223 A.2d 166 (1966); West v. Director, 243 Md. 715, 222 A.2d 639 (1966); Jefferson v. Director, 243 Md. 607, 221 A.2d 660 (1966).

Applicant's final contention has been fully considered and rejected in Mastromarino v. Director, 244 Md. 645, 224 A.2d 674 (1966).

Application denied.


Summaries of

Miller v. Director

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jan 6, 1967
225 A.2d 265 (Md. 1967)
Case details for

Miller v. Director

Case Details

Full title:MILLER v . DIRECTOR OF PATUXENT INSTITUTION

Court:Court of Appeals of Maryland

Date published: Jan 6, 1967

Citations

225 A.2d 265 (Md. 1967)
225 A.2d 265