Court Opinion

ID: 9649308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:47:59.226256+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:01:26.995994
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Boberts :
I join in the majority’s disposition concerning indictment No. 667.
I concur in the result reached on the remaining indictments solely because the probation of February 14, 1966 was a conditional probation, dependent upon the results of future psychiatric examinations. Were it otherwise, I believe the imposition of a greater sentence in these circumstances would violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. United States v. Benz, 282 U.S. 304, 51 S. Ct. 113 (1931); Ex Parte Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163 (1873); see Commonwealth v. Warfield, 424 Pa. 555, 562-66, 227 A. 2d 177, 181-83 (1967) (concurring and dissenting opinion of this writer). Except for the double jeopardy argument, there is no suggestion in the briefs or record that the revocation of the probation was an abuse of discretion.