Opinion ID: 2520887
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Intent of Original District Judge

Text: [¶ 15] Jones argues that the original sentencing proceedings evince an intent that the sentences be concurrent to the previous sentence. We perceive, at best, great ambiguity, and are unable to discern such an intent from the record extant. Constitutionality of the Presumption of Consecutive Sentences in the Face of Silence [¶ 16] We decline to recognize the district court's determination that the sentences be presumed to be consecutive. The record does not support that conclusion. It is clear that the purpose of this Court's remand was to decide the issue on its merits, without reference to the presumption. Given these circumstances, and our decision to remand this matter for further proceedings, we need not address the constitutional issue raised, because it is not a factor in this case.