Court Opinion

ID: 9628132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:08:47.072913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:57.894138
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING Upon motion for rehearing defendant urges that the court’s reference to the order transferring custody from the penitentiary to the Chaves County Sheriff is irrelevant because “its purpose was to arraign him [defendant] for the very offenses arising from his previous [sic] escape. The order has nothing to do with his custody, legally or physically, on the day of his attempted escape many weeks earlier.” Counsel for defendant apparently overlooks that at the time defendant was arrested at the Roswell Correction Center he was under lawful commitment to the State Penitentiary for a prior offense and was merely physically confined at the Roswell facility. When he escaped from the Chaves County jail his commitment and sentence to the penitentiary had not terminated. The order of custody to the sheriff, referred to in the Opinion, was clear evidence of the trial court’s recognition that lawful and prior custody and confinement was in the State Penitentiary. Defendant’s physical confinement in the Chaves County jail on the day of the escape was nothing more than confinement in a “holding” location while proceedings were pending on the charges of the crime committed at the Roswell facility, and his presence in the jail in no way affected his prior lawful custody in or lawful confinement to the penitentiary. Under these facts, defendant’s physical confinement in the jail was confinement in the penitentiary. State v. Moreno, No. 3310 (Ct.App.), decided September 18, 1979. The motion for rehearing is without merit, and is denied. HENDLEY and HERNANDEZ, JJ., concur.