Before Brune, C.J., and Henderson, Hammond, Prescott, Horney, Marbury and Sybert, JJ.
PRESCOTT, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an application for leave to appeal from an order of the Criminal Court of Baltimore dated February 2, 1963, finding the applicant to be a defective delinquent as defined in Section 5 of Article 31B of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1957 Edition).
On June 21, 1961, the applicant was sentenced to two years in the Maryland House of Correction, the term to begin April 22, 1961, and was referred to Patuxent Institution for observation and examination. The applicant was found guilty of the crime of assault by placing his hands on his twelve-year old daughter. The applicant's past criminal record indicates a series of assault and disorderly conduct cases going back to 1945.
On February 2, 1963, after a hearing at which the applicant was represented by counsel, the applicant was found to be a defective delinquent and was committed to the Patuxent institution subject to the further order of the court by Judge Joseph R. Byrnes. From this order, the applicant has filed this application for leave to appeal.
The applicant in his very lengthy petition alleges the following grounds for relief:
1. As a result of his not having been tried for defective delinquency before the expiration of his original sentence, if good time and industrial credits be subtracted therefrom, applicant was denied due process of law and was subjected to inhumane punishment and double jeopardy. This allegation was rejected in Bullock v. Director, 231 Md. 629; Roberts v. Director, 226 Md. 643; and Marshall v. Director, 215 Md. 622.
2. References to prior conviction as a basis for his commitment to Patuxent Institution constitutes an ex post facto law violation. This ground was rejected in Bullock v. Director, supra; Height v. State, 225 Md. 251; Blizzard v. State, 218 Md. 384, 390.
3. "Laxity and incertitude" (incompetency) of counsel at the trial at which the applicant was found to be a defective delinquent. This Court will not grant relief for actions of trial counsel which merely amount to matters of trial tactics. It is only where the incompetence of counsel renders the proceeding
before the court a "farce" that relief on this ground is given, even in criminal proceedings.
4. Applicant's lawyer failed to make a thorough investigation of petitioner's past history. This charge is not reviewable, unless it could be shown as coming within the scope of 3 above. No such showing is attempted by applicant.
5. Applicant's attorney failed to note that his sentence had expired prior to his trial for defective delinquency. ...