Court Opinion

ID: 9860099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:10:18.933983+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:17:53.091040
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE STOUDER, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I agree with my colleagues the trial court erred in imposing a sentence to be served consecutively with another sentence when, in fact, no other sentence had been as yet imposed. My disagreement is with the conclusion the case should be remanded for resentencing. I believe that consistent with our holding all that is required is to vacate that portion of the sentence and mittimus referring to another offense for which no sentence has been imposed. This would leave in effect a determinate sentence for the crime before the trial court, which is all that was warranted at the time of sentence. There is no legal support for the imposition of a sentence affecting or binding a trial court in imposing a penalty for a subsequent sentence. To the extent that the majority of the court implies the trial court may now impose a sentence which it could not have done at the time of the original sentence, it conveys the wrong message. I see no reason for not taking that course of action which would result in the imposition of a sentence which the trial court could and should have imposed at the time of original sentencing. By vacating the improper portion of the sentence, the valid interest of all parties concerned would be amply justified.