Court Opinion

ID: 9474255
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:51:56.500276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:59.040545
License: Public Domain

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
In his brief before this court — signed by a member of the bar — the appellant alleges that, on November 21,1984, “he was placed on full restriction” at the Attic and remained in that status until December 5, 1984.' (Appellant’s Brief 6). He asserts that this status exceeded the restriction on his liberty contemplated in the sentence issued by the district court on September 14, 1984. The judgment and probation commitment order of the district court does in fact specify that the appellant was to spend the period in question in a “community treatment center or jail-type institution with work release privileges ...” (emphasis supplied). The government does not assert that appellant’s status was the same before and after November 21; it simply notes that there was “no evidence in the record” to the contrary. (Government’s Brief 6).
If the appellant's assertions had been established at the probation revocation hearing in the district court, he may well have been entitled to have his sentence to incarceration run from November 21, 1984 instead of December 7, 1984. It would have been preferable for the district court to inquire into the matter during the hearing. However, the absence of any explicit objection by the appellant, represented by counsel, makes the matter unreviewable on appeal. I therefore concur in the result.