Court Opinion

ID: 9707895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:24:07.034555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:39.591895
License: Public Domain

BECKER, Justice.
I respectfully dissent.
I. I would adopt the rationale used by the Michigan and California courts as to concurrent versus consecutive sentencings. *547The rule that sentences are presumed to run concurrently rather than consecutively should apply to all sentencing regardless of the jurisdiction.
I would hold the time served in Kansas subsequent to the Iowa sentencing should be credited on defendant’s Iowa sentence. If more time remains defendant should be held to serve it under present existing rules and regulations. If the time has been fully served (after the above mentioned credit) defendant should be released.
II. I also reject the broad rule holding the manner in which a defendant is brought within the court’s jurisdiction is immaterial. Dissent in Gardels v. Brewer, Warden, 190 N.W.2d 803, 807 (Iowa 1971). However based on the facts in this case, I would uphold the trial court’s holding in this regard.
RAWLINGS, J., joins in this dissent.
REYNOLDSON, J., joins in Division I of this dissent.