Court Opinion

ID: 9538368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:35:46.020154+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:48.720400
License: Public Domain

Brachtenbach, J.
(concurring and dissenting) — While I agree with the analysis of the majority, I would remand to the trial court for resentencing.
It is manifestly unfair to the sentencing judge to allow the defendant and his attorney to represent to the court the intentions of the defendant to repay all of the victims of his fraud and then not only factually reject such obligation, but appeal, successfully, on that very ground.
The defendant should be before the court for sentencing with full knowledge by the court that the defendant does not intend to honor the explicit commitment of an acknowledgement of liability to all victims and a declared intent to pay all those victims, not just those as to whom he was charged.
The majority gives the defendant the best of both worlds. Particularly in a civil fraud case, the court is entitled to know the true character of the defendant. The result of the majority opinion is to deny that knowledge to the trial court before the court passes sentence.
*498I would remand for resentencing.
Rosellini and Wright, JJ., concur with Brachtenbach, J.