Court Opinion

ID: 9476319
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:52:40.456753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:14.582350
License: Public Domain

SKOPIL, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur. Judge Wallace is correct that United States v. Hagler, 709 F.2d 578 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 917, 104 S.Ct. 282, 78 L.Ed.2d 260 (1983), precludes application of the Pearce presumption in this case. Bay’s total sentence was reduced from thirty years to twenty years. Accordingly, there was no net increase in his total sentence and Hagler precludes us from examining each charge individually to determine whether the sentence was increased.
I write separately to express my concern about the trial court’s failure to give any reasons for the new sentence. The sentence for the unarmed bank robbery was increased from five years probation to twenty years incarceration. Although the court was not compelled by Pearce to justify imposition of the increased sentence, the better practice would have been to explain based on objective information why the twenty year sentence was justified.
The failure of the district court to state any objective reason for the increased sentence has made it difficult for us to determine whether the sentence imposed was appropriate for this particular defendant. While vindictiveness cannot be presumed in this situation and there was no allegation of actual vindictiveness, I cannot conclude with certainty that this defendant has received a sentence appropriate to his crime and “life, health, habits, conduct, and mental and moral propensities.” See North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 723, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2079, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969).
Whenever there is the slightest doubt about the appropriateness of a particular sentence, a court should state in the record its reasons for. imposing that sentence. If that simple precaution had been taken in this case, the defendant would have had some understanding of the reasons for his incarceration and we would have had a complete record to review on appeal.