¶1dissenting.
¶2(Filed June 11, 2002)
¶3Based upon the unusual circumstances of this case, I disagree with the majority’s decision to affirm the imposition of a thirty-year sentence. The circuit court was presented with the State’s recommendation of a fifteen-year sentence. Upon hearing the vigorous arguments of the victims’ families, however, the court doubled the recommended sentence and determined that a thirty-year sentence was appropriate for this young man with no prior felony convictions.
¶4The lower court’s decision to double the recommended sentence appears to have been based entirely upon the statements of the victims’ families, requesting more stringent punishment. While a determination of the proper length of sentence was technically within the trial court’s discretion, I am shocked by the degree to which the trial judge increased the sentence. It was wholly appropriate for the trial judge to evaluate the victim impact statements and consider the requests of the victims’ families, but there was also an obligation to impose a sentence appropriate to the crime committed. Doubling the recommended sentence seems excessive in this situation. In light of this extraordinary circumstance, I would conclude that thirty years constitutes an excessive sentence and that the lower court abused its discretion.
¶5I therefore respectfully dissent.
¶6I am authorized to state that Justice ST ARCHER joins in this dissent.
¶7concurring.
¶8(Filed July 2, 2002)
¶9I concur in the majority opinion’s analysis and decision. The separate opinion seeks to remove the sentencing discretion afforded the trial court in this armed robbery case and substitute the judgment of this Court. With this I do not agree.
¶10The trial judge was in a position far superior to this Court. Our review is limited to sheets of paper that have words written on them. The trial judge had the benefit of observing the demeanor of the defendant including his remorse or lack thereof, his attitude, and his overall credibility. The trial judge also had the benefit of observing personally the impact this crime had on the victims and their families. The trial judge properly considered the fact that the defendant refused to name his accomplice or tell officials where to recover the gun used in the crime. The sentence is within statutory limits and is not impermissible. The sentence is proportionate to the character and degree of the crime. The circuit court was not in any way bound by the State’s recommendation of a fifteen-year sentence.
¶11I believe the separate opinion overreaches by suggesting that this Court should usurp the authority of the circuit court and impose a lesser sentence. Accordingly, I concur.