Previous Story
Case sent back for resentencing
The Commonwealth Supreme Court recently returned a case to the trial court for resentencing. In the case, the defendant, Matias Salasiban, made several claims. But the high court only decided one: Whether it was an error to sentence Salasiban without the benefit of a presentence investigation and report, or PSI.
Before sentencing, a trial court must order a PSI except in two circumstances. Those circumstances are when the defendant waives—with the court’s permission—the right to a PSI, and when the court finds and explains why the record is already sufficient to enable meaningful sentencing discretion. Those exceptions were not satisfied. Salasiban and the court did not discuss ordering a PSI. That silence meant the trial court neither gave the defendant permission to waive the PSI (exception 1), nor explained why it was unnecessary (exception 2).
Normally that would be enough for reversal. But Salasiban did not make his PSI claim at the trial level. Because of that, he needed to meet a higher standard called plain error. That standard was met because not ordering the PSI resulted in Salasiban receiving a sentence twice as long as the statutory maximum for the crime he committed.
The Supreme Court’s full opinion is Commonwealth v. Salasiban, 2014 MP 17, and can be found at http://www.cnmilaw.org/supreme14.html. (NMI Judiciary)
