Court Opinion

ID: 9668856
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:28:52.298412+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:49.045046
License: Public Domain

FINCH, Chief Justice
(concurring).
I fully concur in the principal opinion herein. I find this additional reason for so doing:
As I read the dissenting opinion, it proceeds on the premise that petitioner was held in jail for 614 days based upon and pursuant to the detainer warrant issued by the State Board of Probation and Parole. The fact is that petitioner, while at liberty on parole from a five-year sentence for stealing (Case No. C-36487), was arrested and placed in jail on a first degree robbery charge (Case No. C-38345B) and he remained in jail on that charge until sentenced thereon on October 20, 1970.
After petitioner already was in jail on the first degree robbery charge, the detain-*662er warrant for parole violation was issued. Hence, it is erroneous to say, as does the dissent, that prior to the detainer the petitioner was free, or that petitioner, as a result of the detainer, must serve a five-year sentence plus 614 days on the stealing judgment. His jailing was on the first degree robbery charge. We are not dealing with a situation wherein one at liberty is apprehended and placed in jail on a detain-er warrant for parole violation.