State v. Angel M.

Summary

The court affirmed the judgment because the sentencing record did not show that the trial court increased the defendant’s sentence for maintaining his innocence or refusing to apologize. The court relied on the trial judge’s explicit assurance that the defendant would not be punished for exercising his right against self-incrimination and held that withholding leniency for accepting responsibility is not necessarily the same as imposing an unconstitutional penalty. The court expressly left unresolved whether the federal Constitution categorically prohibits considering a defendant’s denial of guilt or refusal to accept responsibility for punitive purposes at sentencing. Justice Ecker, joined by Justice McDonald, concurred while questioning whether conditioning leniency on an apology for uncharged misconduct satisfies the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine.