Court Opinion

ID: 9656007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:30:34.767211+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:26.436679
License: Public Domain

*554STEINMETZ, J.
(concurring). I agree with the result and reasoning of the majority opinion. However, given the current practice of rotating judges between criminal, civil and other jurisdictions, I believe it necessary to write an addition to the opinion of the court.
The claim of double jeopardy arose because the district attorney asked the trial judge, the Honorable Michael J. Barron, to “consider” the charges pending against the defendant “because they are evidence of a pattern of behavior which is an indication of the defendant’s character.” I believe it is proper to advise a judge of other pending charges as a presentence report most likely does. However, I believe it may be a double jeopardy violation to specifically ask a judge to “consider” pending charges. If a judge “considers” pending charges, I think it reasonable to presume that such consideration probably increased the total sentence received by a criminal defendant. This would, in my view, violate the double jeopardy clause, since the defendant would be sentenced twice for the same crime if later convicted on the pending charges.
Judge Barron, being a learned and experienced judge in criminal law as well as civil, avoided all potential double jeopardy problems by stating on the record that he was “not going to sentence him [Jackson] on those [pending] cases by any stretch . . . .” The judge sentenced the defendant to a prison term of 14 years. The maximum sentence for the crime of possession of heroin with intent to deliver is 15 years. At the time of sentencing Judge Barron knew the defendant was selling heroin in potentially lethal doses, that he had a prior record, and that he was apparently the head of an organization that sold heroin in the inner city of Milwaukee for a lengthy period of time. There was no need in this case for the district attorney to ask the judge to consider the pending charges in order to obtain a lengthy *555sentence. Such a request can only create potential constitutional problems that need not arise.
I am authorized to state that JUSTICE LOUIS J. CECI joins in this concurring opinion.