Previous Story
High court affirms sentence on remand
|
Posted on Dec 20 2018
The CNMI Supreme Court affirmed Anthony Borja’s10-year sentence in a sex abuse case but remanded the case to cure a defect restricting his parole eligibility.
This is Borja’s second appeal related to his conviction for sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree.
In its opinion in Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. Anthony H. Borja issued on Dec. 18, the high court, in part, vacated Borja’s sentence in the first appeal because the trial court insufficiently individualized his sentence and relied solely on elements of the offense to justify imposition of the maximum prison term.
On remand, the court resentenced Borja to 10 years’ imprisonment and restricted his parole eligibility until serving six years. He appealed arguing: (1) the trial court insufficiently individualized his sentence, impermissibly used elements of the offense as aggravating factors, and did not consider available mitigating factors; (2) the trial court did not provide proper justification for the restriction on parole eligibility; and (3) to remand his case to a new sentencing judge.
In reviewing Borja’s second sentence, the Supreme Court determined the trial court once again impermissibly relied on an element of the crime. However, unlike the first appeal where the sentence was based solely on an impermissible sentence factor, here the trial court considered numerous mitigating and aggravating factors and further discussed the four sentencing goals—incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and reformation.
The high court also considered Borja’s six-year parole restriction. Because the parole statute requires Borja to serve at least six years and eight months to be eligible for parole, the high court determined the six-year restriction impermissibly restricted parole eligibility below the statutorily prescribed minimum parole. The high court remanded to the same sentencing judge to correct the parole defect.
Finally, because the prison term was affirmed and remanded only to correct the parole eligibility defect, the high court declined to review Borja’s request to remand to a different sentencing judge.
The full opinion is available at http://www.cnmilaw.org/supreme18.html. (PR)
