Court Opinion

ID: 9570513
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:23:54.6426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:05:39.618462
License: Public Domain

BRETT, Judge
(concurring in part, and dissenting in part).
I concur that the plea of guilty to the two charges of armed robbery in this case should be affirmed; but I dissent to the sentences, even as this decision modifies the two sentences, to be confinement for twenty-five years to run concurrently.
If the pre-sentence report is to be of any value, I believe it should be considered by the court, when sentence is imposed. In the instant case it is obvious that the report was not considered; and if it was considered, the sentence imposed resulted from prejudice.
I believe justice would be better served if the sentences herein were modified to be more consistent with the background study of defendant, with the two sentences to run concurrently. The probation report recommended the minimum sentence in this defendant’s case, and states: “I do not believe that lengthy confinement will serve any useful purpose to the defendant or to *882society in general.” This conclusion was reached after considerable investigation of this defendant.
Therefore, I dissent to the sentences imposed on defendant in this case, as being excessive.