Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 34
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 34, § 1676 (2026)

Sentence for crime committed by parolee

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1975, c. 499, §71 (RP).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1967–1988 · leading case: Green v. State, 245 A.2d 147 (Me. 1968).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Green v. State, 245 A.2d 147 (Me. 1968). · cites it 4× “Upon Green’s return to the prison, he was deemed by the prison authorities to be serving his first sentence of not less than 12 nor more than 24 years, service of the 2nd sentence to await the termination of the first sentence; this official construction was mandatory under 34 M.”
Boutot v. State, 380 A.2d 195 (Me. 1977). · cites it 8× “The Attorney General had based his “ruling” on his reading of 34 M.R.S.A. § 1676. 5 Finally, on December 28, 1973, the Petitioner was paroled from Docket No.”
Green v. State, 247 A.2d 117 (Me. 1968). “Assuming that the judge knew the current crime to have been committed while Green was on parole and that any new sentence would have to be served only after the termination of his previous sentence by virtue of 34 M.R.S.A. § 1676, still we have no specific suggestion that his…”
Higgins v. Robbins, 265 A.2d 90 (Me. 1970). “In Hartley we held that under 34 M.R.S.A. § 1676 a sentence for a crime committed by a parolee commenced at the termination of the sentence then being served.”
Weeks v. State, 250 A.2d 827 (Me. 1969). “2d 38 , in which 34 M.R.S.A. § 1676 2 is interpreted. The failure of the Parole Board to execute its violator’s warrant and revoke the parole before appellant’s commitment on the felonious assault sentence did not terminate the first sentence.”
Gilbert v. State, 549 A.2d 737 (Me. 1988). · cites it 2× “4 34 M.R.S.A. § 1676 (now 34-A M.R.S.A. § 5807).”
Freve v. State, 230 A.2d 230 (Me. 1967). “312, § 11, now 34 M.R.S.A. § 1676, it was mandatory that he serve the sentences given to him for the crimes committed while on parole only after the termination of his sentence on the first offense either by full service thereof or specific termination by the parole board, and…”
Kuhn v. State, 254 A.2d 591 (Me. 1969). · cites it 3× “34 M.R.S.A. § 1676. Petitioner filed his petition for the statutory Writ of Habeas Corpus (14 M.”
Tise v. State, 265 A.2d 484 (Me. 1970). “Petitioner’s sentence was within statutory limits, his execution in confinement after revocation of parole of the unexpired portion of the Androscoggin sentence was mandatory (34 M.R.S.A. § 1676) and deferment for the same period of the beginning of execution of the Penobscot…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.