Opinion ID: 1512563
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Weber's 1991 Sentence Intervening Criminal Conviction Loss of Credit Intended

Text: In Faircloth, this Court looked to the sentencing judge's intent to determine when a prisoner's sentence for escape was to commence. Faircloth v. State, 522 A.2d at 1272-73. In the present case, the intent of the Superior Court is unambiguous. In ruling on Weber's September 1992 motion for reduction of sentence, the Superior Court judge wrote to Weber's attorney: Second, you question whether the Court intended to impose the incarcerative portion of Mr. Weber's sentence as a new sentence or consecutive to the sentences he was previously serving. At the time Mr. Weber was sentenced, he was not incarcerated under any previous sentence. The Department of Correction thus correctly interprets my sentence as beginning on May 17, 1991. You argue that beginning this sentence on that date in effect treats Mr. Weber more harshly than otherwise because he was successful in having a previous conviction reversed. Mr. Weber was treated more harshly by this Court not because of the previous conviction and reversal but [because] he chose to commit a violent crime while on parole from the previous sentence. In a February 1993 letter to Weber and in his November 1993 ruling on Weber's motion for correction of sentence, the judge reiterated his earlier statement. Under Faircloth, it is clear on this record that the Superior Court intended that Weber's 1991 sentence be treated separate from his earlier sentence, not that the two sentences be aggregated. In imposing the new 1991 sentence, the Superior Court acknowledged that the separate sentencing structure denied Weber the ability to apply credits for good time earned while serving his 1988 sentence to the 1991 sentence. The transcript of the 1991 sentencing clearly reflects the judge's dismay with Weber's conduct pending retrial and the desire to increase the severity of the new sentence. The 1991 sentence was imposed to deprive Weber of credit for good time only as a result of the additional criminal activity. In fact, in the November 1993 ruling, the court explicitly noted that it was enhancing his penalty due to his conviction of another offense and the defendant's loss of `good time' was within the contemplation of the court. This statement indicates that Weber was not treated more harshly because he successfully took an appeal; rather, he was treated more harshly because of the intervening assault conviction. To impose a sentence so as to deprive the defendant of such time due to subsequent conduct falls entirely within the discretion of the sentencing judge.