Court Opinion

ID: 9673647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:15:52.190117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:23.156063
License: Public Domain

BARHAM, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the result. I would reach that result, however, under a determination that the constitutional requirement for due process was violated in the instant case.
To vest in a trial court the discretion to allow or to refuse to allow credit for the time spent in jail after sentence and pending appeal places ttpon the exercise of the right of appeal, if not a "freezing” effect, at least a “chilling” effect. It is only a defendant unable to obtain release from jail on bail pending appeal who is adversely affected by the ruling we review. Such a defendant may choose not to appeal simply because of the extra length of time he must remain incarcerated when his time in jail pending appeal is not credited against his sentence. This discretion vested in the trial court to actually change the already imposed sentence is subject to serious abuse as a method of discouraging appeals. It is a denial of due process and equal protection thus to discourage anyone from availing himself of the right of appeal allowed by law.