Valenzuela v. State Ex Rel. Eyman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the court’s “intent that consecutive sentences be served [wa]s manifested,” though “not a model of clarity,” where the court stated the sentences were “to run consecutively and to commence as of this date”
• “... Where two or more sentences are imposed against the same person they are to be served concurrently rather than consecutively unless the contrary clearly appears.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).