Colbert v. Director of Patuxent Institution
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Pee Cueiam.
In this application for leave to appeal from the order of the lower court recommitting the petitioner to Patuxent Institution after the second redetermination of his status as a defective delinquent, the petitioner sought leave to appeal as an indigent.
The docket entries show that the petition was duly received *635 and filed, but they do not indicate that the petition was submitted to the judge who presided at the redetermination hearing for a determination by the lower court, pursuant to Maryland Rule 894 a 2 (b), as to whether the petitioner is an indigent and unable to “defray the expense of making application and prosecuting the appeal.” See Crisp v. Director, 231 Md. 616 , 189 A. 2d 117 . We must therefore grant the application for leave to appeal and remand for further proceedings in conformity with the provisions of Code (1962 Cum. Supp.), Art. 31B, § 11 A.
Application for leave' to\ appeal granted md case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.