451 A.2d 1207 | Me. | 1982
In his action for post-conviction relief, petitioner Ring sought a declaration that
The Superior Court correctly ruled that neither the 1976 judgment imposing sentence upon him in Maine nor section 1256 of the Maine Criminal Code
The Superior Court, however, failed in our judgment to give proper weight to the fact situation present here, that Ring commenced serving his six-month Maine sentence at Maine State Prison on February 16, 1978, and that at all relevant times after March 29, 1978, when he was released on his personal recognizance pending appeal, that sentence was held in suspense subject to the bail condition that he return himself to the custody of the Maine Department of Mental Health and Corrections if his appeal was denied. On November 21, 1980, after the denial of his appeal, when Ring reappeared at Maine State Prison, even though he was there also by administrative transfer from Florida, he was complying (admittedly belatedly)
The entry is:
Judgment reversed.
Remanded to the Superior Court for entry of the following judgment: “Petition for post-conviction relief is granted; petitioner, having served in full the six-month sentence imposed on October 6, 1976, in Knox County Docket No. Cr-76-144, is discharged therefrom.”
All concurring.
. 34 M.R.S.A. §§ 1351-64 (1978 & Supp. 1982-83).
. See State v. Ring, Me., 387 A.2d 241 (1978), for our opinion on direct appeal affirming Ring’s conviction for attempted escape, for which the six-month sentence was imposed. The Florida crime of unarmed robbery for which Ring was convicted and sentenced in 1979 was committed while he was free on bail pending appeal of his Maine conviction.
. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256 (1982), formerly § 1155 (1976). See also 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1253(1-A) (1982).
. Fla.Stat.Ann. § 921.16(1) (Supp.1982).
. We, of course, do not suggest that Ring was not in breach of the condition of his bond.
. 15 M.R.S.A. § 1701 (1980) measures the time that Ring had remaining to serve on his six-month Maine sentence, and does not detract from the practical fact that he had earlier been “received into the custody of the department pursuant to that sentence.” He was received back into the custody of the department because his appeal had been denied and he was obligated to return to that custody.