Court Opinion

ID: 9565560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:23:48.017619+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:45.363866
License: Public Domain

BURNETT, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Upon the present record, I join the Court in affirming the sentence imposed for battery, together with the enhancement for use of a deadly weapon. I also concur in identifying the need to examine an included offense issue, and to confirm the nexus between the battery sentence and its enhancement, in future proceedings. However, I write separately to highlight problems in Idaho’s sentencing laws and to express my disagreement with the fixed life sentence imposed for robbery in this case.
The record before us portrays strengths and weaknesses in our criminal justice system. The police work here was superb. Hardly an hour elapsed between the report of a crime and the detention of a suspect. But the police did not act alone. They were assisted by a courageous and clear-minded victim who provided details about the crime even as he was being whisked by ambulance to a hospital. Several citizens, *998belying the notion that people today are unwilling to “get involved,” rushed to the victim’s aid, summoned the police and furnished information about the suspected assailant. When Storey was taken into custody, his rights were duly observed. The police and prosecutor carefully assembled an irrefutable case against him. Consequently, at trial there was no contest over Storey’s perpetration of the offenses charged. The issue was narrowed to whether, under statutes then existing, Storey’s mental illness precluded criminal responsibility for his actions.
On this issue, too, the system performed well. Storey was examined by two psychiatrists, a psychologist and other clinicians. The facts of the case, Storey’s background and the experts’ opinions were probed by competent counsel for both sides. The judge prudently delayed the trial until Storey was fit to participate. The issue of criminal responsibility was tendered to the jury upon proper instructions. The jury’s finding of guilt was abundantly supported by the evidence.
However, the sentencing proceedings have disclosed areas where the system needs improvement. The first problem lies in the statutory treatment of crime and punishment. Robbery is defined as a “felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.” I.C. § 18-6501. The crime may be punished by life imprisonment. I.C. § 18-6503. In contrast, where property is taken from the person of another without force or fear, such conduct is defined as grand theft and is punishable by confinement up to fourteen years. See I.C. §§ 18 — 2407(l)(b)(4) and 18-2408(2); see also former I.C. §§ 18-4604 (2) and 18-4606. The Legislature also has created a separate crime for battery with intent to commit murder or robbery. See I.C. § 18-911. Confinement for this crime is limited to fifteen years. I.C. § 18-912.
Taken together, these statutes convey a curious message. Robbery is an exceptionally serious crime, warranting life imprisonment in some instances because it poses a threat to human life and safety. Yet the penalty prescribed for an actual use of force, with intent to commit murder or robbery, does not differ materially from that prescribed for a mere taking of property from another without using force or fear. Indeed, were it not for the availability of firearm enhancements in certain cases, our statutes would express little more opprobrium toward would-be murderers than toward pickpockets.
The instant case illustrates how the foregoing statutes, enacted at various times by different legislative sessions, fail to express a coherent public policy toward protecting property, on one hand, and toward protecting human life and safety on the other. What policy do our statutes advance when they provide that a person who shoots a fellow human being with intent to murder or rob him cannot be confined for more than fifteen years, plus the enhancement, but that if the same person also lifts a checkbook and wallet containing two dollars, he may be imprisoned for the rest of his life? The anomaly demonstrates a need for our Legislature to reform the criminal code, bringing crimes and punishments into a more rational relationship with each other.3 The criminal justice system cannot respond effectively to public policy if the statutes do not clearly indicate what that policy is.
The uncertain message conveyed by our statutes is accompanied by an uncertain relationship between the judicial and correctional roles in determining appropriate sentences. As discussed more fully below, the district judge in this case received undisputed evidence that Storey’s mental illness was treatable, that he had responded well to medication, and that he was not an appropriate person to be imprisoned for the rest of his life. Nevertheless, the district *999judge imposed a fixed life sentence and said:
I’m aware that if the doctors are correct and that you can be rehabilitated and that you can be released with safety, then, of course, the Board [sic] has the power of commutation at a later time, but I think at this point I have to sentence you as I find you at this point. I think you can never be released with safety to society____
... I must place you where you can’t repeat this offense or this threat to society again.
These remarks carry a profound implication. They suggest that a judge may impose a fixed sentence with the explicit anticipation that it might be commuted later. The power of commutation, like the pardoning power, is vested by our state constitution in the executive department. IDAHO CONST. art. 4, § 7. Clemency is wholly a matter of executive discretion. When a sentence has been imposed, neither the judge nor the prisoner has any ground to expect that it will be changed. Indeed, as a matter of comity between branches of government, such changes should be relatively rare. A judge ought not to impose a harsh sentence in contemplation that it will be commuted later if it proves to be unjust.
More pragmatically, and perhaps more urgently, reliance upon a future exercise of the commutation power directly contravenes what should be a fundamental goal of our criminal justice system: truth in sentencing. The integrity of the judiciary, and the public’s confidence in the entire system, are severely eroded when convicted defendants do not actually serve the sentences pronounced in open court. A judge’s sentence should say what it means and do what it says. Commutation should not be an occasion for executive second-guessing of a judge, nor should it be viewed as a mechanism for granting parole from a fixed sentence. When judge chooses to impose a fixed life sentence, he should fully intend — and the prisoner should fully expect — that the sentence will be served in confinement until the prisoner dies. If the circumstances of the case’ do not permit such an inflexible penalty, a fixed life sentence is inappropriate.
In the present case, the district judge acknowledged uncertainty about Storey’s future. As quoted above, the judge opined that Storey could “never be released with safety to society,” but the judge also noted that the sentence could be commuted if “the doctors are correct and ... you can be released with safety____” These contrasting observations relfect the difficulty of attempting to predict a defendant’s future risk to society, based upon information available at the time of sentencing. However, Idaho’s present sentencing scheme compels judges to do exactly that. When judges impose sentences of confinement, they are abjured to consider the criteria of protecting society, retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation. Of these criteria, only retribution and deterrence can be fully evaluated upon information available to the judge. The judge must guess at the defendant’s course of rehabilitation and the degree of risk he might pose to society when eventually released.
Our criminal justice system would make better sense if a judge were allowed to prescribe a minimum period of confinement necessary to achieve the goals of retribution and deterrence, followed by a second period in which correctional authorities— having intensively studied the prisoner— could determine when, or whether, his rehabilitative progress allows a safe return-to society. This kind of sentence, combining fixed and indeterminate components, would allow judges and correctional authorities to perform complementary functions. It also would produce greater truth in sentencing because the minimum period of confinement prescribed by the judge actually would be served (subject, perhaps, only to earned “good time”). Unfortunately, Idaho’s statutes do not authorize such a sentence. Idaho Code § 19-2513 provides for indeterminate sentences while I.C. § 19-2513A provides that a court may impose a fixed sentence “[a]s an alternative to an indeterminate sentence____” The *1000Legislature’s choice of the word “alternative” arguably precludes a mixed sentence.4 Consequently, judges confront “all or nothing” choices between fixed sentences, which must be served entirely in confinement, and indeterminate sentences from which prisoners may be paroled.
The instant case starkly portrays this choice. Storey committed a frightening crime. Had the bullets from his gun deviated a few millimeters, the case would have been a homicide. The victim still carries bullets that could not be removed safely. He has undergone physical therapy for nerve damage and muscle atrophy, and he has incurred substantial medical expenses. But he has recovered and has returned to work in an intellectually challenging profession.
Storey had no prior record of any felony or crime of violence. In 1967, 1970 and 1974, he was convicted of nonviolent misdemeanors. Shortly before the instant crime, he was found in possession of a concealed weapon, another misdemeanor. Judgment was withheld for that offense.5 Storey was a graduate of California State University at Long Beach, having received a B.A. degree in political science. He was attending courses at Boise State University when the robbery occurred.
But Storey’s private life was troubled. Raised by his mother, with virtually no contact from his father, he was deeply affected when his mother died from cancer in 1979. He moved to Boise in 1980, living off money his mother had left him and finding only scattered employment. Acquaintances noted that his behavior was unusual. They heard Storey describe conspiracies against him and they observed him answering silent “voices”. He expressed an affectation for guns and for Nazi history. He engaged in arguments and unpleasant confrontations at taverns and other public places.
When Storey was examined after the robbery, the doctors found that he suffered from a “major mental illness.” The illness was diagnosed as schizophrenia, paranoid in type. As the doctors later explained to the court and jury, schizophrenia is a disturbance in thought association, a schism between thought and reality. (It is not the “split personality” that lay persons often envision.) The precise cause of the disease is not known. It may reflect a biological abnormality in brain chemistry.
In Storey, the disease manifested itself in delusional and constricted thinking. Although the delusions did not encompass Storey’s entire life, they were sufficiently pervasive to produce psychosis — that is, a loss of contact with reality and of ability to function normally. Although the illness affected Storey’s behavior, it was not so advanced as to preclude criminal responsibility.
While confined, Storey was treated for his illness. The treatment program included the administration of neuroleptic (anti-psychotic) medication. The program produced marked improvement in Storey’s condition. By the time of trial, his illness was described as being in “reasonable” remission, with some residual symptoms.
At a subsequent hearing on Storey’s motion for reduction of the sentences, a psychiatrist testified that Storey did not have a “sociopathic personality disorder,” nor did he exhibit “what we would commonly refer to as a criminal kind of personality.” The doctor further testified that Storey appeared to be in the “top twenty percent” of schizophrenic patients — those who respond well to neuroleptic medication. The doctor stated that after several years of confinement, Storey would be an appropriate candidate for release to an out-patient treat*1001ment program, subject to resumed confinement if he did not fully cooperate in continued treatment. The doctor explained that the neuroleptic medication was administered by injection; consequently, it would not be necessary to trust Storey to take the medication on his own. Failure to receive a timely injection would not result in a sudden deterioration of behavior. The doctor observed that decompensation would occur gradually over a period of “weeks or months.” He noted that Storey's illness originally had gone untreated for several years before manifesting itself in violent behavior.
A social worker at the Idaho State Correctional Institution testified that Storey was “nonviolent, passive and ... no threat to security.” A clinical psychologist at the ISCI testified that incarceration under a fixed life sentence would exacerbate the mental illness, “eventually resulting] in a degree of mental illness that would be incurable.” 6
There aré, of course, limits to what doctors know and to what they can accomplish. The doctors in this case candidly acknowledged that no one could “guarantee” the nonrecurrence of any criminal behavior by Storey. The state has argued that such uncertainty about the future warrants the affirmance of a fixed life sentence. But the argument sweeps too broadly. Some measure of uncertainty exists in virtually every criminal case. The lack of a “guarantee” does not entitle us to disregard the otherwise unrefuted evidence and professional testimony that Storey can be treated and eventually could be returned to society with appropriate safeguards. I reject the implicit suggestion that competent doctors and correctional authorities never should be trusted to make such a decision in this case.
Fixed life sentencing is justified not by uncertainty but only by a high degree of certainty — certainty that the defendant will be dangerous until he dies, or certainty that the objectives of retribution and deterrence require confinement for life even if the defendant ceases to be dangerous. The record in this case does not support either of these conclusions.
As the Court’s lead opinion explains, a sentence of confinement should not exceed the minimum that appears necessary, at the time of sentencing, to accomplish the primary objective of protecting society and to achieve any or all of the related goals of deterrence, retribution or rehabilitation. State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (Ct. App.1982). A trial judge’s determination of appropriate sentence is entitled to considerable deference. “An appellant must show that, under any reasonable view of the facts, his sentence was excessive in light of the foregoing criteria.” Id. at 568, 650 P.2d at 710. But this appeal turns not so much upon differing views of the facts as upon differing views of the function of a fixed life sentence in our criminal justice system. The issue is one of judicial policy.
Here, the district judge has made no finding that retribution or deterrence would require confinement until death. A cogent showing has been made that the defendant could be rehabilitated and eventually returned to society. Accordingly, I would hold that a fixed life sentence exceeds the minimum necessary to achieve the enumerated sentencing objectives. The life sentence for robbery should be indeterminate rather than fixed.
This does not mean that Storey should be released in the near future, nor that he must be released at all.7 An indeterminate *1002sentence, like the fixed sentence, would authorize confinement for life. However, an indeterminate sentence, unlike the fixed sentence, would not rest upon a pretension of certainty about the future. Neither would it depend upon an exercise of the independent constitutional power of commutation in order to assure a just result. These fundamental differences lie at the heart of our sentencing system. They are entitled to greater recognition that the district court and today’s majority have given them.

. A legislative sentencing committee, created by the 1985 Legislature, is studying numerous proposals for improving Idaho's sentencing system. Among the proposals is a comprehensive revision of the substantive crime provisions of the Idaho Code.

. This precise question has not yet been decided by the Idaho Supreme Court or Court of Appeals. However, an Attorney General’s opinion has commented that mixed sentences appear to be impermissible under the present statutes. See 9 Op. Idaho Att’y Gen. 59 (1979).

. Armed with proverbial "20-20 hindsight," we now can see that the concealed weapon case might have provided an opportunity for psychological examination and intervention before the robbery.

. In addition to the human cost, a fixed life sentence imposes a formidable economic cost. The costs of confinement are $13,000 per year in federal prisons and they range from $5,000 to $23,000 in state prisons. U.S. DEPT. OF JUSTICE, REPORT TO THE NATION ON CRIME AND JUSTICE (1983). When a judge imposes a fixed life sentence upon a young man, he in effect writes a check against the taxpayers’ account for several hundred thousand dollars.

. As noted at the outset of this opinion, I join in upholding the concurrent, fixed sentence of fifteen years for the battery, enhanced by another fixed term of fifteen years for use of a firearm. Unless the battery sentence is set aside on remand, it will require Storey to be confined twenty years, with credit allowed for the "for*1002mula” good time currently available under I.C. § 20-101A. See generally State v. Miller, 105 Idaho 838, 673 P.2d 438 (Ct.App.1983). Even if the battery sentence were set aside, twenty years could be viewed as an appropriate period of confinement before consideration is given to release. Compare I.C. § 20-223 (mandating at least ten years’ incarceration upon an indeterminate life sentence). Such extended confinement might not provide an optimal rehabilitation program for Storey, but it would be entirely consistent with a balancing of rehabilitation against the criteria of retribution and deterrence.