Was Hernandez Prejudiced Because He Lost the Opportunity to Serve His Sentences of Incarceration Concurrently?
The Court said it rejected a similar argument in State v. Washa and courts have consistently rejected arguments that a delay that may affect a defendant’s ability to serve concurrent sentences is prejudicial within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory requirement for a prompt hearing. “This is simply not the sort of prejudice that the requirement of ‘prompt consideration’ was intended to preclude” they said. “And in any event, the sentencing court is free to consider the defendant’s already-completed incarceration in determining how to dispose of the case, providing the opportunity for the court to impose the functional equivalent of concurrent sentences when warranted. Conclusion: Hernandez was not denied “prompt consideration” of his probation revocation, and the district court’s sentence was not an abuse of discretion. AFFIRMED.
