tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post3771335722691043139..comments2023-08-24T10:39:23.460-04:00Comments on CAAFlog: CAAF questions NMCCA's failure to reduce sentence upon reassessmentDwight Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11657981110237418710noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-22199710560675155182008-03-25T17:09:00.000-04:002008-03-25T17:09:00.000-04:00Well, OK, I guess sentencing is not divorced from ...Well, OK, I guess sentencing is not divorced from "the law." But, in the context of the alluded to presumption, it has no effect or relevance. Except, of course, that appellate judges are presumed to know the sentence maximum and to approve no more.<BR/><BR/>Otherwise, "the law" on sentencing is simply a broad mandate for the sentencing authority to use its discretion. So my comment is limited to the context of sentence reassessment: there is no presumption to follow.<BR/><BR/>But, anon 1, if you think there is such a sentencing presumption, pray tell, what is it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-84529681968370138922008-03-25T13:41:00.000-04:002008-03-25T13:41:00.000-04:00Although biased as the trial defense counsel in th...Although biased as the trial defense counsel in this case, I have to add that the sentence adjudged--7 years confinement--was the maximum confinement that could be given for the remaining specification of indecent acts with a child. Compare this to the life sentence that was available to the members for forcible sodomy of a child. I think CAAF got it right that with such a vast difference between the charge set aside on appeal and what remains, there needs to be an actual sentence reassessment or a rehearing.Jeff Stephenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02978904130111370537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-69207434172859795612008-03-25T13:32:00.000-04:002008-03-25T13:32:00.000-04:00I didn't realize that sentencing was divorced from...I didn't realize that sentencing was divorced from law. And if "gut instinct" is a substitute for the law why have any rules for sentencing at all?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-1284475926955963812008-03-25T09:43:00.000-04:002008-03-25T09:43:00.000-04:00"The law" is not at issue here. This is a pure se..."The law" is not at issue here. This is a pure sentencing matter. Sentencing is largely discretionary, with broad legal boundaries. The difference between, say, 20 months of confinement, versus, say 30 months of confinement, is not really a "legal" issue. So your alluded to "presumption" is irrelevant.<BR/><BR/>But, truth be told, NO! NMCCA judges are NOT presumed to know the and follow the law. They sometimes follow their gut instincts and garnish it with the most plausible legal citation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-84831971721165100572008-03-25T06:15:00.000-04:002008-03-25T06:15:00.000-04:00I guess appellate judges, at least at NMCCA, are n...I guess appellate judges, at least at NMCCA, are not presumed to know and follow the law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com