Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sentencing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals argument raises claim that sentencing judge interwove religious language; state asks court to review possible sentencing error
Summary
State counsel urged the appellate court to examine a possible sentencing error on one count and defense counsel said the trial judge interwove religious language into the sentencing, arguing that combined factors warrant review or remand.
During oral argument, the state told the panel it believed there may be a sentencing error warranting the court's attention and possible remand on count 50. "I do think there is a sentencing error in the judgment on count 50 and we would just ask the court to look at that and determine if there is one and maybe remand," the prosecutor told the panel.
In rebuttal, defense counsel Pat McN said the trial judge had interwoven religious references into the sentencing decision, arguing that the court referenced God and religious authority while explaining the sentence. McN summarized the sentencing language to the panel: "the foremost purpose of the sentencing act is justice and that justice is a priority of God," and urged review under precedent the panel had applied in prior cases.
State counsel acknowledged prior appellate criticism of religious overtones in sentencing and asked the court to review settled precedent to determine whether any error in the current case requires relief. The judges questioned counsel on precedent and whether the sentencing language amounted to reversible error.
The panel did not issue a decision at argument; counsel were told the court would consider both the suppression and sentencing arguments in its disposition.
