Court Opinion

ID: 9761276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:37:15.439312+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:21.683297
License: Public Domain

MONTGOMERY, Judge
(dissenting).
In brief, my reason for dissenting is that an accused who has raised no objection to or has acquiesced in, if not consented to, a delay is not entitled to go scot free, especially when he has pleaded guilty. I am concerned at holding such a judgment void.
Obviously the appellant consented to the arrangement of filing the motion for a new trial and the postponing of a ruling on it. The record discloses no objection at any time until he was called upon to serve the sentence to which he had pleaded guilty. The delay in ruling on the motion is not unreasonable when not objected to or is consented to or acquiesced in by the defendant.
The majority opinion says, “There must be some time in which a convicted person may know he has satisfied his debt to society.” The appellant here has done nothing to satisfy his debt to society — ■ he has been free for over five years. It is only when he is called upon to “satisfy his debt” that he objects. This surely cannot be called a satisfaction of his debt to society.