When Arizona Judges Comment on Remorse at Sentencing and Why It Can Trigger a Remand

Sentencing can feel like the moment when everything turns personal. The court is no longer deciding guilt or innocence, but it is deciding how much punishment to impose. This is also where people sometimes hear comments about “remorse,” “accepting responsibility,” or “taking accountability.” Arizona law draws a clear boundary here. A judge may not punish someone for maintaining innocence or for refusing to admit guilt after a conviction.

A recent Arizona Court of Appeals decision illustrates how this issue arises in sentencing hearings and why certain comments may require a case to be remanded for resentencing.

Arizona Sentencing and Consideration of Remorse

Judges have broad discretion in sentencing. They may consider the nature of the offense, the impact on others, prior history, and lawful aggravating or mitigating factors. In some situations, genuine remorse can weigh in mitigation when it reflects insight or rehabilitation.

That discretion has limits. Arizona courts have repeatedly held that a judge cannot increase a sentence based on a person’s refusal to admit guilt, continued claim of innocence, or decision to remain silent. These protections exist to preserve the right to trial and the right against self-incrimination. A sentence cannot become harsher simply because someone does not say what the court wants to hear.

Maintaining Innocence After a Conviction in Arizona

Many people maintain innocence after a jury verdict. Some believe the evidence was misunderstood. Others want to preserve appellate issues or avoid statements that could complicate future proceedings. Arizona law recognizes that choice.

A sentencing judge may not treat continued denial as evidence of poor character or increased risk. When the court links punishment to a lack of admission, it crosses into prohibited territory. This principle applies whether the person speaks at sentencing or chooses not to address the court.

The Stevenson Decision and Why Resentencing Was Required

In the recent case, the sentencing judge imposed maximum prison terms and ordered portions of the sentence to run consecutively. While explaining the sentence, the judge referenced the person’s lack of remorse and failure to accept responsibility, alongside other factors. The record also showed that the person continued to deny guilt at sentencing.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the sentencing comments improperly tied the punishment to the person’s refusal to admit guilt. Even though no objection was made during the hearing, the appellate court reviewed the issue and determined that the error went to the foundation of the sentencing decision. Because the court could not say the same sentence would have been imposed without the improper consideration, it vacated the sentences and sent the case back for resentencing.

This outcome underscores an important point. Appellate courts do not reverse sentences lightly. A remand usually means the record shows a real connection between the improper factor and the sentence imposed.

Fundamental Error Review in Arizona Sentencing Appeals

Sentencing issues often arise unexpectedly. Trial counsel may not have time to object before the court moves on. Arizona appellate courts can still review serious sentencing errors under the fundamental error standard.

Under that framework, the court looks at whether the error was significant, whether it affected the fairness of the proceeding, and whether it likely influenced the outcome. In sentencing cases involving comments about remorse or silence, appellate courts focus on whether the judge relied on those comments when selecting sentence length or consecutive time.

How Improper Sentencing Comments Happen in Practice

Problems tend to arise in familiar ways. A judge asks whether someone “accepts responsibility” and treats a denial as aggravation. A judge says a harsher sentence is appropriate because there is “no remorse,” when the record shows the person maintained innocence. A judge references silence as proof that the person is not taking the matter seriously.

Not every reference to remorse triggers reversal. The appellate court looks at the full context. The issue becomes serious when the record suggests that punishment increased because of a refusal to admit guilt.

Preparing for Sentencing in Arizona Criminal Cases

Sentencing requires strategy, not just emotion. Some people want to speak directly to the court. Others are better served by letting counsel focus on lawful mitigation. Either approach should account for the risk that statements about guilt or innocence can provoke improper commentary.

Practical preparation often includes deciding in advance whether a statement helps, focusing mitigation on treatment, work history, family support, and stability plans, and avoiding arguments that relitigate the verdict and invite an improper response. Preserving the record also matters when sentencing comments cross legal boundaries.

Contact an Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney

Sentencing decisions can hinge on subtle issues that are easy to miss in the moment. Comments about remorse or responsibility can create appellate issues with serious consequences. The Law Office of James Novak represents people facing criminal sentencing and post-conviction challenges in Arizona. A careful review can help you understand whether a sentencing record reflects an improper basis and what options may exist going forward. Contact an Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney at (480) 413-1499.