Court Opinion

ID: 9860300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:17:30.577457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:20:40.767588
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HEIPLE, also dissenting: The 15-year sentence in this case should be affirmed. The case came up on appeal because of a sentencing modification by the trial judge who had initially sentenced the defendant to two consecutive prison terms of nine and six years for a total of 15 years. When it was brought to the trial judge’s attention that consecutive sentences were impermissible, he resentenced the defendant to a single 15-year term. The majority views this as an increase in the sentence which is contrary to law. While I agree with the majority that the trial judge had no authority to increase the defendant’s sentence, I would only add that he did not do so. Although diligent legal research disclosed analogous cases in support of my position (i.e., 2 plus 2 equals 4, etc.), I was unable to come up with a precise case involving the figures 9 plus 6. Nonetheless, in mathematics at least, if not in law, this axiomatic principle has been universally accepted since the time of Pythagoras in the 6th century B.C. That is to say, the fact that 9 plus 6 equals 15 has been considered self-evident for the last 2,500 years of recorded history. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. CHIEF JUSTICE BILANDIC joins in this dissent.