Justices affirm robber’s 20-year prison sentence

The CNMI Supreme Court has affirmed the 20-year prison term that was imposed on a notorious habitual offender who had pleaded guilty to robbing a poker arcade in Chalan Kanoa in 2017.

The high court justices ruled Friday that Superior Court Associate Judge Joseph N. Camacho did not abuse his discretion in imposing the 20-year prison term on Marlon Martin.

“We find the sentence was not mechanically imposed and was properly individualized,” said the high court’s opinion, which was penned by Associate Justice Perry B. Inos and concurred by Chief Justice Alexandro C. Castro and Associate Justice John A. Manglona.

The justices said that Camacho considered Martin’s individual factors by looking at his prior criminal history, the circumstances of the crime, mitigating factors, aggravating factors such as the escalating seriousness of his criminal activities, and his status as a recidivist.

“These constitute just reasons for the severity of punishment and indicate a conscious consideration of Martin’s individual characteristics and the circumstances of his crime on the part of the court, rather than a reflexive attitude,” the justices noted.

Chief prosecutor John Bradley said Saturday that, while the Supreme Court did not accept their criticism of the growing number of judicially-created rules that trial judges must follow in sentencing, they are grateful that the high court was respectful of the discretion trial judges deserve in sentencing.

“Apparently, only the Legislature can stop the proliferation of new rules by repealing the provision upon which the Supreme Court relies for its authority. We welcome that discussion so that sentencing is simplified and victims are protected from endless litigation,” Bradley told Saipan Tribune.

The justices said Camacho properly weighed various mitigating and aggravating factors and did not abuse his discretion, that Camacho considered Martin’s repeat offender status, his previous seven-year sentence that failed to deter him, and his escalating, violent criminal endeavors.

While Martin’s use of the hammer, an element of the crime, was given consideration, Camacho did not rely solely on that factor, said the justices. They disagreed with Martin’s assertion that his demonstrated remorse, acceptance of responsibility, and lack of serious injury to the victim were not adequately considered. The justices said Camacho did consider Martin’s remorse and acceptance of responsibility, but concluded that these factors were not significant enough to outweigh the aggravating factors.

Because Camacho gave his reasoning for restricting parole eligibility, the justices said the judge did not abuse his discretion.

According to court records, less than a year after his release from seven years in prison for robbery, Martin robbed Viva Poker in Chalan Kanoa on May 22, 2017, disguising himself with a mask and a hooded jacket and, armed with a hammer, pressed it against the cashier’s neck and stole $500. In August 2017, Martin pleaded guilty to robbery as part of a plea deal.

Camacho had noted that Martin has six prior criminal convictions such as armed robbery, robbery, burglary, aggravated assault and battery, and theft. The sentencing was held in 2018. Martin, through counsel, asked for a sentence of time served, which was seven months and 20 days at the time, and to be deported to Palau.

Camacho sentenced him to 20 years imprisonment, denied probation, early release, work or weekend release, or other similar programs, and restricted parole eligibility to the last five years of his sentence.

Martin, through assistant public defenders Nancy Dominski and Jean Pierre Nogues, then appealed to the Supreme Court to vacate the sentence.

Martin argued that Camacho failed to properly individualize the sentence, mechanically imposed the sentence, impermissibly restricted parole eligibility, and impermissibly denied early release, work release, weekend release, or other similar programs. He also asked to remand the case to a different judge for resentencing.

Assistant attorney general Robert Charles Lee argued in the government’s opposition.