A common practice in our county court is for judges to tell defendants what they are likely to sentence them to if they go to trial and lose, vs. what they'd get if they copped a plea. Today a judge told a defendant in an underage-sex sting operated by the sheriff's department that she'd sentence him to 60-75 years if he went to trial and lost, but would give him time served (275 days) and 3 years probation if he pleaded out.
That strikes me as coercion, plain and simple.
This would form the basis (if the defendant elected to take a trial and lost) for an appeal to modify the sentence due to an abuse of the discretionary aspects of sentencing. It is improper for a judge to tell a defendant that he would impose a particular sentence, based on the decision to take a trial. Such a judge is prejudging the facts, and actually should be removed from the case.
I remember standing with a client for sentencing, a few months after being found guilty after a jury trial. The assistant DA asked for a sentence in the aggravated range because the defendant put the county, the police, etc through the time and cost of trial. The judge, who was not known for emotion or leniency, exploded and lectured the DA, "We do NOT punish anyone in this court for exercising his constitutional rights!"
If a defendant pleads straight up, the admission and recognition of cupability will usually result in some mitigation of sentence, but the mere fact that a defendant elected to take a trial should not aggravate the sentence.
