Court Opinion

ID: 9814087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 23:34:36.135146+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:34:22.506856
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION
By HORNBECK, J.
I concur in the judgment with my associates, but upon a somewhat different theory.
I am in agreement with the claim of the plaintiff that if the plaintiff is not on parole from New York State, then the Compact for Mutual Assistance, §108-1 GC, has no application, and if the plaintiff has served the full period of his sentence, then he is not amenable to any condition of parole. *279The act assures to the officer from the sending state that no question affecting violation of the terms of the parole shall be adjudicated in any other state than the state from which the parolee has been committed. No such claim is made here, the basic contention being that the plaintiff has fully served his sentence and therefore may not be considered as ‘“any person on probation or parole”.
But the action seeks an order of this court against the Warden of the Ohio State Penitentiary and the Sheriff of Franklin County, removing the right of custody of the plaintiff from both of them. It does not clearly appear that, under the conditions of the release by the state of Ohio to the state of New York, if satisfactory arrangement be not made for the prisoner’s return to New York, the release of the plaintiff would be effective. In this situation the relief prayed cannot be granted even though we would hold that plaintiff may not be returned to New York on the warrant for his arrest.