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 because he refused to apologize. It separately emphasizes that the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine limits the government's ability to condition even an otherwise discretionary benefit on relinquishment of constitutional rights. The concurrence views an apology to the victim of the convicted offense as sufficiently related to legitimate sentencing purposes, but questions whether the same condition could constitutionally apply to a victim of uncharged misconduct; that issue was not decided because the defendant did not raise it. Ecker, J., joined by McDonald, J., concurs in the judgment while cautioning against treating the decision as approval of that sentencing practice.