Appellate counsel says trial judge imposed consecutive sentence based on error; asks court to modify or remand

Summary

Appellant counsel argued the trial court imposed consecutive sentences for Lorenzo Brown based on a mistaken belief that stacked time was mandatory; counsel asked the appellate panel to modify the sentence or remand for resentencing, while the state urged plain-error review and highlighted the defendant's burden to show prejudice.

Drew Justice, attorney for appellant Lorenzo Brown, told a three-judge appellate panel that the trial court imposed consecutive sentences “based on the erroneous premise that he was required to do so,” and asked the court to modify Brown’s sentence or remand for resentencing.

The argument matters because, Justice said, correcting the error would reduce Brown’s total prison term by 12 years; he urged the panel that the five-factor plain-error standard is satisfied where the judge announced the sentence was consecutive only because counsel and the parties thought it was mandatory. “The trial court gave mister Brown consecutive sentencing, based on the erroneous premise that he was required to do so. And that was error it was not only error, but it was plain error,” Justice said.

Justice told the panel the…

Appellate counsel says trial judge imposed consecutive sentence based on error; asks court to modify or remand

Summary

Subscribe to keep reading