Opinion ID: 2268164
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Law of the Case Asserted

Text: The State does not dispute two crucial factual findings by the Superior Court on remand concerning Hamilton's October 14, 1988 sentencing before Judge Martin for robbery and conspiracy. First, the State does not dispute that the robbery and conspiracy sentences imposed by Judge Martin on October 13, 1988 were imposed to run concurrently with each other. Second, the State does not dispute the Superior Court's factual finding on remand that Judge Martin's 1988 resentences were imposed to commence in 1977 and could have been served concurrently with the other sentences imposed in 1976. The State has never taken the position that Hamilton's robbery and conspiracy sentences imposed in 1988 should not run concurrently. Because both parties are in accord on the issue of the concurrent nature of the robbery and conspiracy sentences, the only real point of dispute is the effective date of the sentence. On the effective date issue, the State contends that the question has been previously resolved by this Court in Hamilton. [13] In that decision, this Court held that the January 24, 1977 date does not relate to when Hamilton was to begin serving his sentences .... It was proper for the Department of Correction to calculate Hamilton's release date by calculating chronologically all of his consecutive sentences, even those he has already served, beginning with the date he first entered prison. [14] The State submits that this Court's opinion is the law of the case, and the portion of the Superior Court's report on remand that is inconsistent with that opinion must be set aside.