Opinion ID: 2446852
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Closed Mind Claim

Text: Finally, Jenkins argues that the sentencing judge exhibited a closed mind by not considering his suppression motion at the VOP hearing, and concluding that it was unlikely one would be successful even in a prosecution. Jenkins claims that because the suppression motion was ultimately granted in his co-pending criminal case, the sentencing judge erred by failing to recognize that the search warrant was, on its face, legally defective. [34] This Court's review of a sentence is limited to whether the sentence is within the statutory limits. [35] Where the sentence falls within those limits, this Court will not find an abuse of discretion unless it is clear that the sentencing judge relied on impermissible factors or exhibited a closed mind. [36] A judge exhibits a closed mind where the sentence is based on a preconceived bias without consideration of the nature of the offense or the character of the defendant. [37] A judge is permitted to have some preconceived notion about the proper sentence to be imposed, but cannot have closed his mind upon the subject before the proceeding. [38] That is, the judge must have an open mind at least to the extent of receiving all information bearing on the question of mitigation. [39] Jenkins has not shown that the sentencing judge acted with a closed mind by failing to consider any mitigating evidence, because Jenkins presented no mitigating evidence in his defense. In fact, Jenkins did not present any evidence at the hearing. Although Jenkins asserted that a suppression motion had been filed in the co-pending criminal case, he did not file a suppression motion in the contested VOP hearing, even though he knew that one should have been filed if he wanted the court to exclude the evidence. [40] Accordingly, when imposing the sentence, there was no reason for the sentencing judge not to consider the evidence resulting from the search and seizure, since no motion to suppress had been filed. [41] Although a suppression motion was later granted in the co-pending criminal case, it would have been improper for the sentencing judge to decide the search warrant's validity in the VOP hearing where that issue had not been properly raised. Jenkins has failed to show that the sentencing judge's decision was plain error.