Supreme Court vacates trial court’s sentence and remands for re-sentencing

The Supreme Court has vacated Jin Song Lin’s five-year prison sentence for pleading guilty to a sexual abuse of a minor in the third degree and remanded the case to the trial court for re-sentencing

In its decision last Sept. 12, the Supreme Court said the trial court failed to conduct an individualized review of the defendant’s life and circumstances, including the need for deterrence and the ability to be rehabilitated, before making its sentencing determination.

Lin’s conviction carried a sentence from a minimum of two to a maximum of five years. At the sentencing hearing, Lin was allowed to present factors particular to his life that might result in a lesser sentence.

The trial court heard statements from Lin’s wife about the family hardship resulting from his time in prison, and about Lin’s good character from his landlord. Lin acknowledged his fault and told the court that he had entered into a civil settlement to provide restitution to the victim.

At the end of the hearing, the trial court gave Lin the maximum prison sentence of five years without the possibility of parole. Lin appealed his sentence arguing the sentencing judge engaged in a “broad policy of sentencing offenders of every age and category to the statutory maximum.”

He further argued that the judge did not consider any of the information presented at the sentencing hearing, and therefore, his sentence must be set aside.

The Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not impose the statutory maximum simply because of the judge’s fixed attitude. Rather, the record below shows that the judge reviewed the information relevant to Lin and gave some thought in imposing his punishment. Thus, “in view of the sentencing process in its full context,” the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not err.

However, the Supreme Court held the trial court abused its discretion in its sentencing because the court did not consider Lin’s individual circumstances, including the mitigating factors Lin presented.

The Supreme Court determined that Lin’s punishment was merely based on elements of the crime committed, rather than factors relevant to Lin such as the need for deterrence and the ability to be rehabilitated.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred when it completely denied parole eligibility because it did so without an adequate explanation. The Supreme Court emphasized that the trial court has a duty to individualize its sentences. The sentence must be tailored to the particular offender because public interest demands that punishment not simply fit the crime, but also the offender.

The Supreme Court’s full opinion is available at http://www.cnmilaw.org/supreme16.html. (PR)