High court vacates sentence, remands case for resentencing

The NMI Supreme Court issued a ruling yesterday in Commonwealth v. Borja, vacating an order signed by Superior Court Associate Judge Joseph N. Camacho sentencing Anthony Borja to 10 years imprisonment because the judge failed to impose an individualized sentence.

The opinion addresses Borja’s four arguments on appeal. Borja argued the trial court erred by holding the sentencing hearing on Saipan instead of Tinian. The Supreme Court found Borja’s argument unpersuasive because the case law cited failed to support his proposition that 6 CMC § 108(a) requires the entire case be heard on the island where the offense occurred. Further, the high court found Borja’s NMI Rule of Criminal Procedure 18 argument inapposite because Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 18 requires only trials—not other proceedings—be held in the “division” where the offense was committed.

Second, Borja argued that the trial court erred because he was denied his right of allocution before imposition of his sentence. Borja also contended he was deprived of his right, established by NMI Rule of Criminal Procedure 32, to call witnesses at sentencing. The high court disagreed, stating that Borja was not denied his right of allocution because the record indicates he was directly addressed by the court prior to sentencing. Further, the high court held that NMI Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 does not provide defendants with the right to call witnesses at sentencing.

Third, Borja argued that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to order a presentence investigation report. The Supreme Court held that abuse of discretion was the incorrect standard of review because Borja neither requested a presentence investigation report nor objected to the trial court’s failure to order one. Instead, the high court held the correct standard of review was plain error. Moreover, the high court found that Borja failed to satisfy all prongs of plain error review because it was unclear whether the error affected the outcome of the proceeding.

Lastly, Borja argued that the trial court failed to impose an individualized sentence. Here, the Supreme Court agreed, stating that the imposition of the maximum sentence was unwarranted because the trial court failed to consider information beyond the act of the crime. Particularly, the high court noted that the sentence was not sufficiently individualized because information particular to Borja’s life went unacknowledged. Further, the trial court failed to request a presentence investigation report, which compiles information relevant to the particular circumstances of a defendant and is helpful in imposing individualized sentences.

Because the trial court did not impose an individualized sentence, the high court vacated Borja’s sentence and remanded to the trial court for resentencing.

The Supreme Court’s full opinion is available at http://www.cnmilaw.org/supreme15.html. (NMI Judiciary)