Court Opinion

ID: 9453778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:23:49.561248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:48.114832
License: Public Domain

KILEY, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the result reached in this case.
The sole ground relied upon in the district court by defendant to support his motion was his contention that any person who is confined in jail prior to commencing the service of a jail sentence must be granted credit for that time against his sentence if the reason for the confinement was his inability to raise bail. This is the rule only with regard to pre-sentence confinement due to failure to raise bail. The rule as to confinement pursuant to an election not to serve made prior to the 1966 amendment of Rule 38(a) (2) is, however, that an election not to serve amounts to a waiver of any right to have time spent in jail following conviction and pending appeal credited against the sentence of the elector. The district court therefore properly rejected defendant’s motion.
I reserve judgment with respect to the issue raised on appeal: whether Pruitt’s election not to begin serving his sentence pending appeal was not intelligently made because at the time it was filed he had only an eighth grade education, had not seen his appointed counsel since his sentencing, was under the impression that his lawyer had removed himself from the case immediately after sentencing, and because he relied upon the advice of fellow prisoners in filing the election. These allegations were not *505before the district court and consequently are not before us now.
Had the allegations been made in support of the motion before the district court, a hearing could be required to determine whether defendant’s election was made with a full understanding of the consequences which might follow.1
The district court, hearing the facts alleged, would not be required to find that Pruitt was properly advised of the consequences of making the election merely because the formal letter of withdrawal of Pruitt’s appointed trial counsel was filed with the court two days after Pruitt’s election was filed; or because an attorney was appointed to represent Pruitt on appeal 1% months after the election was filed; or because Pruitt did not actively seek advice of counsel before filing the election.

. The significance of the filing of such an election and the consequential importance of assuring that such elections have been made intelligently is demonstrated by the facts of this case. Here the filing of the election has resulted in the defendant’s confinement in prison for a period of more than one year during which, but for the election, he would have been free.