Court Opinion

ID: 9738014
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:40:32.824557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:03.124827
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Achor, J.
I concur in the result of the majority opinion, but it occurs to me that one issue is raised *450which deserves further consideration. I have discussed that issue in this concurring opinion.
It is contended that the failure of the State of Indiana to retake the parolee when made available by the states of Missouri and Illinois constituted a waiver of his delinquency during the period of his imprisonment by those states.
In support of this contention attention is called to the fact that, if a parolee can be apprehended within the State of Indiana, it is the manifest intention of the parole statute (Acts 1897, ch. 143, §§5, 6, 7 and 8, page 219, being §§13-248, 13-249, 13-250, 13-251, Burns’ 1942 Repl.) that, on violation of his parole, the parolee must be returned to the prison if it is possible to do so. Therefore, it necessarily follows that a delinquency can be declared by the parole board only in event the return of the prisoner is not possible. Upon this subject, §13-250, supra, expressly provides: “Any officer of said prison, or any other officer authorized to serve criminal process within this state to whom such warrant shall be delivered is authorized and required to execute said warrant by taking said prisoner and returning him to said prison.” (Our italics.)
However, the intention of the legislature with regard to the taking of a parole violator charged with a criminal offense in another state before declaring a delinquency, presents an entirely different situation. If a parolee is charged with a second offense committed while on parole in this state, it is contemplated by statute that he be presently tried for the second offense and if found guilty that he serve time for such second offense in addition to and after the first sentence has been served (Acts 1947, ch. 61, §1, p. 205, being §9-2250, Burns’ 1942 Repl. (1953 Supp.)). The statute seems to demonstrate a clear legislative intention that a parolee *451should not be permitted to assert or use the fact of his parole as a means of avoiding separate and additional punishment for the subsequent second offense. It would seem that such intention would prevail whether such subsequent offense is committed in the State of Indiana or in another state.
Bearing in mind the intention of the legislature as above expressed, the problem which confronts the parole board is essentially as follows: The parole board is vested with the authority and is charged with the responsibility of considering the record of each prisoner as related to his eligibility for parole. If a parolee commits a crime in this state, the parole board has no responsibility with regard to a conviction for that offense. This is true because the parolee is in the continuing jurisdiction of the state and can be prosecuted by the proper authorities as the processes of our courts permit. However, such procedure is not possible if the crime is committed in another state because there is no such continuing custody as between the officers of Indiana and those of independently sovereign states. If a parolee is to be charged with a second offense, committed in another state, his constitutional guarantees require that he be tried “speedily and without delay.” This means that he must be tried in that state before being returned to Indiana. This is necessary to both the state and the accused in order that witnesses can be obtained and they can testify while their recollection of the case is clear. If he is convicted of that offense, it follows that he must first serve his sentence in that state before being returned to the State of Indiana to complete his sentence for which he was on parole.
The above procedure differs from that provided in §9-2250, supra, only that the parolee serves time for the second offense in the other state before completing *452his sentence for the first offense in this state. The difference should not, however, serve to avoid punishment for the second offense. In the case of Dowd v. Basham (1954), 233 Ind. 207, 116 N. E. 2d 632, 635, it was stated that sentence for the second offense is made “without reference to the time when it shall be executed.”
If a parolee commits a crime in another state and he is offered by that state to the parole board of Indiana as a parole violator, the circumstances of the case make it the duty and responsibility of the board to determine whether or not the record of the parolee justifies his return without permitting him to also pay the penalty for his second offense committed in that state If, under the record, the parole board determines that the parolee should be subjected to trial for the crime committed by him in another state, we cannot say that such action constitutes a waiver of its right to declare a delinquency during the period of parolee’s imprisonment for the second crime. Rather, in taking this action, the board has exercised its responsibility as authorized by the statute (§13-251). The situation with which the board was confronted was brought about by the parolee’s own wrongdoing and I find no basis for challenging the board’s exercise of discretion in the matter.