Court Opinion

ID: 9550358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:34:30.130966+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:26.548449
License: Public Domain

RABINOWITZ, Justice,
concurring.
In his original brief, counsel for Brookins argued that his sentence of ten years was grossly disparate when compared with the sentences received by his two co-principals, each of whom was sentenced to five years, six months to serve and the balance suspended. Brookins’ argument is premised on the notion that few principles of justice are so fundamental as the view that like cases should be treated alike. What concerns me is that the sentencing judge first sentenced Heard, then at Brookins’ sentencing hinted that he had perhaps sentenced Heard too leniently; after he had sentenced Brookins, the court sentenced Wilson to the same sentence that Heard had received.
Admittedly, Brookins played a more serious role in the criminal episode which is the focus of this appeal, and therefore is subject to more stringent sanctions than either Heard or Wilson. Nevertheless, I believe that upon remand the court, in resentencing Brookins, should take into consideration this seemingly unjustified disparity.1
I am in agreement with all other aspects of the court’s opinion in this case.

. The foregoing is based on the assumption that there is nothing in Brookins’ past history, or personality, which would justify the apparent disparity.