Court Opinion

ID: 9634401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:10:12.562265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:01.847711
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Montgomery, J.:
I readily concur in the opinion of the majority written by Judge Flood and appreciate the opinion of Judge Woodside expressing the minority view. Both are learned dissertations on a subject, the principles of which, heretofore, have not been too firmly fixed in the minds of the bench and bar.
My concurrence is founded, particularly, on the implication, which I believe compelling, that the probation provision attached to the suspension of sentence on Bill 1135, also attached to the seven other bills without being so expressly stated. In my mind there is no other reasonable conclusion to be drawn, except that all eight sentences were suspended because the appellant was placed on probation for twenty-three *398months. Had he complied with the requirements of his probation, the privilege of the court to impose sentence on any one or all of the bills would have terminated at the end of the probation period. Having failed in that requirement, appellant was subject to sentence on any or all of the bills, subject to the rule of reasonableness, insofar as the time for imposing such sentences is concerned.