Court Opinion

ID: 9685987
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:12:25.532139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:12.305376
License: Public Domain

MORGAN, Justice
(dissenting).
I join specially in thé dissent of Henderson, Justice.
First, I would agree that some sentences could be constitutionally invalid. However, lest we open a new flood gate of appeals on sentencing, I would anticipate that review would not be necessary except upon imposition of life imprisonment or the death penalty.
With respect to this case, I too think the trial judge went too far. I agree with the trial judge’s comments as far as they went. As I read the record, he had a 36-year-old man who had spent a good part of the previous 15 years in the ¡state penitentiary. He apparently has an alcohol problem; at least he and his counsel injected that into the record.* However, almost all the previous offenses for which he had been convicted involved money or property as did the one for which he was being sentenced. True, the law protects property and property interests, but I consider life imprisonment to be a sentence that should be reserved for offenses against persons. Certainly, such a sentence should be supported by a much more extensive record demonstrating a more compelling reason than mere recidivism and further demonstrating that the sentencing judge had imposed the maximum sentence only after contemplative deliberation considering all possible alternatives. The record before us demonstrates a rather summary decision from the bench.
I would remand for resentencing.

 Defendant did not consent to a presentence investigation that might have substantiated that assertion.