HARRY HUGHES, Governor

191

A PERSON WHO VIOLATES ANY PROVISION OF SUBTITLE 4 OF
THIS TITLE, WHICH RELATES TO DENTAL LABORATORY WORK, OR WHO
ADVERTISES A DENTAL APPLIANCE IN VIOLATION OF § 4-502(C) OF
THIS TITLE IS GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND ON CONVICTION IS
SUBJECT TO A FINE NOT EXCEEDING $2,000 OR IMPRISONMENT IN
JAIL NOT EXCEEDING 6 MONTHS.

REVISOR'S NOTE: This section is new language derived
without substantive change from Art. 32, §§ 21,
25(d), and 33.

In subsection (a) of this section, the present
reference to the matter being tried in the
Criminal Court of Baltimore City or the circuit
courts of the respective counties is deleted as
obsolete and as having been repealed implicitly
with the institution of the district courts in
this State.

Also in subsection (a) of this section, the words
"State penitentiary" are substituted for
"penitentiary" to conform to similar provisions
in other revised articles. See, e.g., FI §
5-804.

In subsections (a) and (c) of this section, the
references to the State penitentiary and "jail"
are retained because, although under Art. 27, §
690 of the Code prisoners now are sentenced to
the jurisdiction of the Division of Corrections,
that section did not abrogate the concept of
"penitentiary misdemeanors". For penitentiary
misdemeanors and felonies, there is no statute of
limitations, while for misdemeanors "not made
punishable by confinement in the penitentiary by
statute" there is a 1-year limitation. See CJ §
5-106 and Mullins v. State, 12 Md. App. 222
(1971).

In subsection (b) of this section, the words "aid
or abet" are substituted for "permit" in present
Art. 32, § 33, for clarity.

As to present Art. 32, § 33, see also § 4-601(b)
of this subtitle.

The Commission to Revise the Annotated Code calls
the attention of the General Assembly to the
penalty scheme of this subtitle. This revision
accurately preserves the scheme of present Art.
32, in which any violation of §§ 25 and 26
through 34 is a misdemeanor, but in which only
certain narrowly defined violations of §§ 1
through 24 and 25A are misdemeanors. This scheme
seems to be illogical and likely is the product
of oversight rather than considered
differentiation. The General Assembly may wish