Opinion ID: 1733341
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Appellate Review of Sentences in Other Jurisdictions.

Text: The American Bar Association has made the following observation regarding appellate review of sentences in this country: The number of jurisdictions in this country in which appellate review of sentences is available is steadily growing. Over half of the states now permit review of the merits of sentences in some circumstances. The principle that there ought to be appellate review of sentences, particularly of sentences imposed in serious cases, is now widely accepted. [27] Indeed, our research indicates that there are at most only ten states in this country which do not allow any form of appellate review of sentences. The remaining states, either by statute, court rule, or case law, allow some form of appellate review of sentences, although the scope of review varies widely from state to state. States which provide for appellate review of sentences by statute or by court rule have established a procedure for such review either within the existing appellate structure or by way of a separate review panel which then has the authority to increase or decrease a sentence imposed by the trial court. In some states the decision of the review panel may not be reviewed on appeal whereas other states allow an appeal from such a panel, but apply a limited scope of review. [28] States which provide for appellate review of sentences by case law generally apply an abuse of discretion standard, although this can mean anything from a virtually de novo sentencing to an almost total preclusion of relief. Other standards used include findings that the sentencing court was clearly mistaken, committed clear legal error, or imposed a sentence which shocks the conscience of the reviewing court. [29] In light of the extensive literature devoted to the issue of appellate review of sentencing, we will not take time here to examine in depth the review practices currently available in other jurisdictions. [30] It is sufficient for us to note that we have examined many of these authorities and have arrived at the conclusion that, like most of the other states in this country, our state should extend some form of appellate review to those defendants who desire to challenge the trial court's exercise of discretion in imposing sentence.