Alethia Kasben
Gongwer News Service
A defendant is entitled to resentencing if the original scoring guidelines used by the trial court were incorrect, even if a judge indicates they would implement the same sentence, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
In People v. Armogeda (SC Docket No. 167760), the court ruled that when a sentencing court relies on incorrectly calculated scoring guidelines to sentence, a resentencing hearing is required. If a sentencing court goes beyond what is suggested in the guidelines, it must articulate the reasons for the departure, the court ruled.
Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Justice Elizabeth Welch, Justice Kyra Harris Bolden, Justice Kimberly Thomas and Justice Noah Hood. Justice Richard Bernstein agreed with the crux of the decision but wrote separately. Justice Brian Zahra dissented.
The case involved a defendant who was convicted of assault with intent to commit murder, carrying a dangerous weapon and fleeing. The trial court imposed a sentence of 360 to 600 months based on scoring the prosecution later conceded was incorrect. The trial court judge, however, said they would not change the sentence even with the correct score.
Cavanagh wrote that a previous decision, Francisco, requires resentencing using the corrected scoring, even if the sentence is not going to change.
“To be clear, a remand for resentencing in this instance is not an inexorable command to the trial court to impose a different sentence,” Cavanagh wrote in the majority opinion. “Instead, the sentencing court’s responsibility on remand is to score the applicable sentencing variables based only on accurate information, correctly calculate the recommended minimum guidelines range, and consider the corrected guidelines range when imposing a new sentence.”
Writing separately, Bernstein said the court did not need to invoke Francisco and could simply remand for resentencing.
Zahra, in his dissent, wrote reliance on Francisco was misplaced, and the trial court record was fully developed and did not require resentencing.
“Resentencing is only required if the court concludes that the information contained in the corrected (presentence investigation report) would in fact lead the court to impose a different sentence,” he wrote.
Gongwer News Service
A defendant is entitled to resentencing if the original scoring guidelines used by the trial court were incorrect, even if a judge indicates they would implement the same sentence, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
In People v. Armogeda (SC Docket No. 167760), the court ruled that when a sentencing court relies on incorrectly calculated scoring guidelines to sentence, a resentencing hearing is required. If a sentencing court goes beyond what is suggested in the guidelines, it must articulate the reasons for the departure, the court ruled.
Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Justice Elizabeth Welch, Justice Kyra Harris Bolden, Justice Kimberly Thomas and Justice Noah Hood. Justice Richard Bernstein agreed with the crux of the decision but wrote separately. Justice Brian Zahra dissented.
The case involved a defendant who was convicted of assault with intent to commit murder, carrying a dangerous weapon and fleeing. The trial court imposed a sentence of 360 to 600 months based on scoring the prosecution later conceded was incorrect. The trial court judge, however, said they would not change the sentence even with the correct score.
Cavanagh wrote that a previous decision, Francisco, requires resentencing using the corrected scoring, even if the sentence is not going to change.
“To be clear, a remand for resentencing in this instance is not an inexorable command to the trial court to impose a different sentence,” Cavanagh wrote in the majority opinion. “Instead, the sentencing court’s responsibility on remand is to score the applicable sentencing variables based only on accurate information, correctly calculate the recommended minimum guidelines range, and consider the corrected guidelines range when imposing a new sentence.”
Writing separately, Bernstein said the court did not need to invoke Francisco and could simply remand for resentencing.
Zahra, in his dissent, wrote reliance on Francisco was misplaced, and the trial court record was fully developed and did not require resentencing.
“Resentencing is only required if the court concludes that the information contained in the corrected (presentence investigation report) would in fact lead the court to impose a different sentence,” he wrote.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
