Court Opinion

ID: 9643898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:43:15.531925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:21.727542
License: Public Domain

WASSERSTROM, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in Part I of the majority opinion. I also concur in that portion of Part II which holds that no constitutional principle prohibits a remand of this case for resen-tencing and possible enhancement of the sentence on Counts I and II.1 However, I cannot agree with the holding by the majority that such a remand is prohibited by the Missouri Penal Code.
The trial court found defendant to be a dangerous offender and he refrained from enhancing defendant’s punishment only because he thought the total of 25 years contained in the jury’s verdicts constituted a sufficient aggregate punishment. That this was the attitude of the court plainly appears from the following statement during the course of sentencing:
“It is the Court’s position that the sentences may be run concurrently or consecutively, and it is the judgment of this Court, exercising its discretion, that the sentences should be run consecutively to each other and the sentences are so run.
“The Court does not exercise its discretion in enhancing the punishment as I feel that the jury verdict under all the circumstances was sufficient and I am not enhancing the punishment.”
The Attorney General argues that if the sentence under Count III is now to be vacated, then the trial judge should be given an opportunity to reach the result which he deemed to be just by spreading the same 25 year sentence over the remaining Counts I and II.
*122The Attorney General’s position is reasonable and appealing. The trial court did find defendant to be a dangerous offender. Under the provisions of Section 558.016, the court could have enhanced the punishment to a total considerably exceeding 25 years. On the other hand, the court also had the authority under Section 557.036 to reduce the aggregate sentence to less than 25 years. The court clearly accepted the 25 year total sentences stated in the verdict because in his judgment that aggregate total was fair and just. It seems obvious that if the trial court had known that five years of that aggregate sentence would not stand because of the reversal of the conviction under Count III, he would have exercised his discretion to spread that five years over Counts I and II by way of enhancement. The trial court should be given that opportunity now unless there is some legal impediment standing in the way. The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in United States v. Busic, 639 F.2d 940 (1981) and in United States v. Pinto, 646 F.2d 833, 838 (1981) under analogous circumstances has held that there is no such impediment. A similar ruling was made in Davis v. State, 400 A.2d 292 (Del.1979); modified in a respect not here controlling, Hunter v. State, 420 A.2d 119 (Del.1980) and Fullman v. State, 431 A.2d 1260 (Del.1981).
The majority opinion, however, declares that the Attorney General’s proposal for remand “violates a positive enactment and is unlawful.” The majority perceives such a statutory prohibition in Section 557.036. I do not.
The general rule of sentencing is stated in Section 557.036.1 and vests the power of imposition in the trial judge. That subsection provides that upon a jury’s verdict of guilt, “the court shall decide the extent of duration of sentence or other disposition to be imposed.” That general rule is subject to the limitation stated in Section 557.036.3 which says that any term of imprisonment imposed by the judge shall not exceed the term declared by the jury; but that limitation is in turn subject to an exception set forth in Section 557.036.3(2) returning the full power of sentence imposition to the judge where “the defendant is found to be a persistent or dangerous offender as provided in section 558.016.”
The defendant in this case was found to be a dangerous offender by the trial judge, as the majority opinion concedes. That finding made Section 557.036.3(2) applicable, thus eliminating the limitation upon the judge’s general power to impose sentence.2 That in my opinion should conclude this inquiry.
However the majority disregards the plain language of Section 557.036.3(2), under which all that is required is a finding by the trial judge that the defendant is a dangerous offender, and the majority adds a further requirement of its own that the defendant cannot be considered a “dangerous offender” until he has been so adjudged and sentenced. The closest that the majority opinion can come to citing statutory authority for this proposition is its reference to Section 558.016 which defines the term “dangerous offender.” That section states that a dangerous offender is one who is being sentenced for a felony during the commission of which he knowingly murdered or endangered or threatened the life of another or knowingly inflicted or attempted or threatened to inflict serious physical injury on another and he has been previously convicted of a dangerous felony. The majority interprets the phrase “[i]s being sentenced for a felony” as meaning that the defendant must be in the course of being sentenced as a dangerous offender. That interpretation is unwarranted. The phrase in question clearly has reference to the underlying felony for which the defendant has just been tried by a jury — in this case, the burglary and the robbery. Section 558.016.4 in no way supports the notion that *123a defendant cannot be a dangerous offender until he has been sentenced as such; nor does it support the majority’s theory that the trial judge is not free to exceed the jury’s recommendation until he has actually done so.
Another theory mentioned in the majority opinion, although not really developed, is that the trial judge in this case would have no power to impose any sentence beyond that recommended by the jury for the reason that the sentence by the trial judge here was “pronounced under the verdict of the jury.” However, as already shown, the power of sentencing under Section 557.036.1 is that of the court, not the jury. This principle which is quite clearly stated in the statute itself is further elucidated in The New Missouri Criminal Code: A Manual for Court Related Personnel (1978), Sec. 2.2, as follows: “Even when the jury makes an initial sentencing assessment, the court must still ‘decide the extent or duration of sentence or other disposition to be imposed’ .. . Thus, the court makes the ultimate decision as to the extent or duration of sentence, even after a jury assessment of an appropriate maximum term of imprisonment ... The code provisions require the court to structure an appropriate disposition in each case whether or not the jury is involved in sentencing.” See also, Sec. 2.7 and Comments at page 2-11.
The respective roles of court and jury in the sentencing process was recently discussed by the Missouri Supreme Court en bane in State v. Blake, 620 S.W.2d 359 (Mo. banc 1981). The opinion in that case refers to the severe limitations upon jury participation in the sentencing process and suggests, as did State v. Hunter, 586 S.W.2d 345 (Mo. banc 1979) that, “Perhaps the jury should be informed that its role in sentencing, under some circumstances, is merely advisory.” The situation here would qualify as the type of circumstances so mentioned.
The conclusion seems compelled that the sentencing in this case was the act and judgment of the court, not that of the jury. Considering especially, what he stated of record at the time of sentencing, the trial judge obviously considered the sentencing on all counts as interrelated and that all were part of a single package. If one part of that package be subtracted, the whole of the sentencing structure should be voided and the trial court should be permitted to consider resentencing afresh. That was the reasoning in United States v. Busic, supra, where the court stated at l.c. 947:
“In the case at bar the defendants contend that they did not appeal their section 111 convictions and the sentences imposed, and the Government did not cross-appeal. However, it is evident that the district court structured its sentence on the erroneous assumption that punishment for the defendants’ conduct could be distributed under both section 111 and section 924(c). In fact, the court imposed the heaviest punishment under section 924(c). When the defendants successfully appealed their convictions under section 924(c) and obtained reversals, the court’s sentencing plan, based on the aggregate conviction for the criminal assault on the federal officers with firearms, was thwarted. In such a ease, where the sentences were' interdependent, we believe an appellate court, vacating one of those sentences, can vacate the other sentence even if its imposition is not specifically raised on appeal.... ”
In my opinion, this case should be remanded to the circuit court for resentencing on Counts I and II and for dismissal of Count III, with the caveat that the aggregate of the sentences under Counts I and II should not exceed 25 years. I respectfully dissent from the ruling by the majority to the contrary.

. That holding by the majority contradicts and nullifies the theory expounded and semi-embraced by Footnote 13 of the majority opinion.

. Once it is shown that the limitation on the judge’s sentencing power has been eliminated, that power becomes equivalent to that of the trial judge under the federal practice, and the attempt by the majority opinion to distinguish Busic and Pinto, on the basis of difference between federal and state sentencing practice, fails.