State v. Carberry

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding an “extremely terse” statement was adequate when “[s]uch brevity . . . does not necessarily handicap our review of the sentencing discretion”
• affirming even though the court’s statement of reasons for imposing consecutive sentences “was extremely terse”
• finding when a defendant is convicted of a greater offense there is no prejudice in the failure to submit additional lesser-included offenses
• noting though the “statement of reasons for imposing consecutive sentences was extremely terse[,] [s]uch brevity of statement, however, does not necessarily handicap our review of the sentencing discretion”
• finding an “extremely terse” explanation sufficient where it was “reasonably clear from what was said that the judge imposed consecutive sentences based on his perception of the aggregate culpability of two separate and distinct heinous offenses”
• upholding sentences despite “extremely terse” statement by the court because it was “reasonably clear from what was said that the judge imposed consecutive sentences based on his perception of the aggregate culpability of two separate and distinct heinous offenses”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).