Court Opinion

ID: 9663465
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:39:43.460984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:50.456948
License: Public Domain

Kelly, J.

(dissenting).

I would set aside the sentence and remand to a different circuit judge for resentencing.
The trial judge here lost his objectivity and got emotionally involved, and this is reflected in his treatment and sentencing of defendant. The hearing conducted May 20, 1985, entitled Delayed Sentencing Hearing, degenerated into a trial as to whether defendant had operated his vehicle while *750under the influence of intoxicants on April 28, 1985. At that hearing the trial judge vigorously cross-examined defendant and took the role of prosecutor in freewheeling abandonment of his judicial role. An example of the cross-examination by the court follows:
The Court: Now are you lying, Mr. Salgat? Because if you are lying to me, I’m the wrong person to lie to.
Defendant Salgat: No.
The Court: This is the wrong place to lie. Because if you’re lying to me, then you’re talking about a Circuit Court Judge who loses his compassion, who loses any sense of forgiveness, and generally talks about retribution. And the retribution not only will be for the crime that you stand before the Court convicted of, but the retribution will be for the insult to the dignity of the Court while you’re on the delayed sentence committing another crime, do you understand that?
The court then a few days later conducted a "probation violation hearing” although the defendant was not on probation. At the conclusion of that hearing the court addressed the defendant at some length and stated:
Just remember Mr. Salgat, you’re going to prison here today because you abused controlled substances, that’s why you’re going. No other reason, and because of that abuse, and your rationalization process, you think you can support your habit by crime, and in this court, and in this country crime doesn’t pay ....
At various times the defendant had been under therapy with the Veteran’s Administration and was in the Battle Creek va hospital. When he was originally arrested his counsel filed a motion for *751commitment for psychiatric evaluation. At the time of sentencing he was apparently under psychiatric treatment, was taking 100 milligrams of librium every day plus Tylenol iv, and medication obtained from the va hospital.
The sentencing guidelines recommended a zero to twelve months minimum sentence. Defendant’s prior record score was zero, the final prv level was a and the final offense severity level was 1. The court sentenced defendant to IV2 to 15 years after working itself into a lather over the question whether defendant had been drinking when involved in a minor accident. There was no specific prohibition against drinking contained in the trial court’s order of delayed sentence issued July 2, 1984. There was a prohibition against violating any criminal laws, but defendant was not tried and convicted of drunk driving, and those charges were later dismissed. In fairness to the trial judge defendant probably was driving while intoxicated, but this one misdemeanor offense violation should not serve as the reason for this huge sentence enhancement.
Defendant’s IV2- to 15-year sentence is completely unjustified, seems motivated by anger and malice, and shocks my judicial conscience. Although the defendant’s mental disorders seem to indicate a very compelling need for institutional oversight, I am not convinced that Jackson Prison is the appropriate place for him to receive psychiatric care.