Court Opinion

ID: 9783380
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 19:44:57.919065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:22.977294
License: Public Domain

COPE, J.
(concurring).
Henry Leunne entered a guilty plea to federal charges and received a sentence of nineteen years in 1999. He was transferred to state custody to face state charges. He entered a guilty plea in 2000 and received a sentence of thirty-three years. The sentencing judge agreed that the thirty-three-year sentence should run concurrent with the nineteen-year federal sentence and the state sentencing order so indicates. However, counsel stated on the record that for the federal and state sentences to be concurrent, a motion needed to be filed in the federal court and concurrent sentencing was contingent on approval by the federal judge.
In defendant-appellant Leunne’s current motion, he complains that the sentences *118are not running concurrently, but does not explain what ruling was entered by the federal judge. In the absence of such an explanation, I can only assume that the federal judge denied the request that the state and federal sentences be concurrent. I therefore concur that affirmance is in order.