What Are the Practical Implications of Allowing a Sentencing Court to Impose State and Fedral Time Concurrently ?

In LeGrande v. Department of Corrections, 894 A.2d 219 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), where a state judge sentenced state time to run concurrently with federal time, the Court explained the practical implications of allowing a sentencing court to impose concurrent time, stating: "It permits a sentencing judge to partially shift the cost of confinement away from Pennsylvania, thereby attaining a salutary efficiency." LeGrande, 894 A.2d at 224. "The holding affords greater flexibility to a judge in the complex process of sentencing where multiple offenses against multiple sovereigns are involved. Also, such cases are usually further complicated by the unavailability of the offender. It . . . allows a trial judge in the proper case to accept plea agreements and thereby expedite resolution of charges. The response to recidivism in the limited circumstances of contemporaneous sentences from multiple sovereigns is not to hamper the trial judge; rather, the remedy is for the Board to take failure on parole into account in determining backtime." Id.