RMI v Elanzo [2008] MHSC 7; 3 MILR 52 (5 June 2008)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS

S. Ct. Case No. 2006-009
High Ct. Criminal No. 2006-021

REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS
Plaintiff-Appellee

-v-

MISAKI ELANZO,
Defendants-Appellants

DECISION OF SENTENCE APPEAL
JUNE 5, 2008
CADRA, C.J.
KURREN, A.J.,[1] and WALLACE, A.J.[2]

SUMMARY:
Misaki Elanzo was found not guilty by a jury on the charge of sexual assault in the third degree. He was found guilty by the court on the charges of child abuse and sexual assault in the fourth degree. The court sentenced him to two years imprisonment, with one year suspended, on the child abuse conviction, to be served concurrently with one year imprisonment on the sexual assault in the fourth degree conviction. He appealed this sentence as "very harsh." The Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in sentencing Elanzo as it did. The sentence was affirmed.

DIGEST:

1. APPEAL AND ERROR –Criminal Sentence: The court reviews sentence appeals under the "abuse of discretion" standard.
   
2. APPEAL AND ERROR –Criminal Sentence: The court gives great deference and weight to the trial judge's sentencing decision so long as it is within the statutory range of permissible sentence and is not arbitrary or capricious, and will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge merely because it could have balanced the factors differently and could have arrived at a lesser sentence.
   

3. APPEAL AND ERROR –Criminal Sentence: Provided the trial judge fully considered the factors relevant to imposing sentence, the appellate court will generally conclude there was no abuse of discretion.

4. APPEAL AND ERROR –Criminal Sentence: The reviewing court may not change or reduce a sentence imposed within the applicable statutory limits on the ground that the sentence was too severe unless the trial court relied on improper or unreliable information in exercising its discretion or failed to exercise any discretion at all in imposing the sentence.

5. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – Sentencing – A defendant is not entitled to a lesser sentence on counts he is convicted of merely because he was found not guilty of a more serious offense.

Misaki Elanzo brings this appeal claiming the sentences imposed upon him by the High Court were "very harsh" or excessive. As there was no abuse of the trial judge's discretion in imposing the challenged sentences, we AFFIRM.

Procedural Background: