State v. Angel M. — concurring

Summary

The concurrence agrees that the trial court did not punish the defendant for maintaining his innocence, but merely denied him discretionary sentencing leniency after he refused to apologize. It explains that unconstitutional-conditions principles still limit the conditions attached to discretionary benefits and concludes that an apology to the victim of the convicted offense was sufficiently related to legitimate sentencing objectives. The concurrence leaves unresolved whether conditioning leniency on an apology to a victim of uncharged misconduct would violate constitutional protections. Ecker, J., joined by McDonald, J., concurs in the judgment while cautioning trial judges about that unresolved issue.