Court Opinion

ID: 9617808
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:01:44.958748+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:17.376431
License: Public Domain

COATS, Judge,
concurring.
I strongly disagree that Judge Hunt could not properly take into consideration the actions which were taken by the Coast Guard when she imposed her sentence. Monk served four to six weeks in an alcohol treatment program and spent at least three weeks of this time in residential treatment. The state agreed that he should be given credit for having served a term of imprisonment during the time he was in residential treatment. Judge Hunt properly considered this in imposing sentence. In addition, Judge Hunt properly considered the fact that Monk’s driving privileges were revoked for driving on any military installation for twelve months. Judge Hunt could also consider Monk’s other extensive efforts at alcohol rehabilitation, even though they were to some extent enforced by the military. The military interest and participation in Monk’s rehabilitation is extremely positive.
Monk’s commanding officer asked the court to restrict Monk to quarters rather than serve additional jail time. Having Monk restricted to quarters rather than having him serve additional jail time was the cornerstone of the defense argument at sentencing. Judge Hunt did not explain her failure to impose this sanction. I can only assume that she simply forgot to impose this portion of Monk’s sentence. I accordingly join the majority opinion disapproving the sentence.