FSM 3 Intrm. 082-084

There is no provision in the National Criminal Code of the Federated States of Micronesia permitting the court to modify a sentence after judgment. The rules only permit the court to reduce a sentence within 120 days after the sentence has been imposed. FSM v. Finey, 3 FSM Intrm. 82, 84 (Truk 1986).

The only power given to the executive to modify a sentence is the power to grant pardons and reprieves. FSM v. Finey, 3 FSM Intrm. 82, 84 (Truk 1986).

No authority exists for the Court to grant home visits. FSM v. Finey, 3 FSM Intrm. 82, 84 (Truk 1986).

This matter came before the Court on December 10, 1986 on the petition of the defendant for an order releasing the defendant each Sunday to do domestic labor at his house. The government consents.

The defendant is imprisoned for eight years pursuant to the judgment filed February 4, 1983.

As to the power of this Court to grant the petition, there is no provision in the National Criminal Code of the Federated States of Micronesia permitting the court to modify a sentence after judgment. The rules only permit the court to reduce a sentence within 120 days after the sentence is imposed.

As to the power of the executive to modify a sentence, the only power granted is that of pardon and reprieve. FSM Const. art. X, § 2(c).

In the United States the defendant points out the executive may have the power to parole, to reduce sentences through "good time" credit earned by the prisoner, and to extend the limits of confinement. 18 U.S.C. § 4082(b).

Because alternatives ameliorating or reducing sentences by the executive do not exist in the Federated States of Micronesia, the defendant urges the court to retain jurisdiction in criminal cases in order to respond to changing conditions during the service of sentences of imprisonment and to accommodate the needs of prisoners who have demonstrated good conduct.

The defendant also urges that the United States' pattern of the court losing jurisdiction after sentencing not be automatically adopted without a consideration of the suitability of such a pattern in the Federated States of Micronesia, see Rauzi v. FSM, 2 FSM Intrm. 8, 15 (Pon. 1985), and urges that the decision be consistent with Micronesian customs. FSM Const. art. XI, § 11.

The Court's attention is not directed to any other jurisdiction that permits its courts to have the continuing power to modify sentences.

The Court concludes that no authority exists for it to grant this petition and allow the home visits; it is unwilling to assume such authority.


	FSM SUPREME COURT TRIAL DIVISION (Truk) Cite as FSM v. Pablo Finey, 3 FSM Intrm. 82 (Truk 1986) [3 FSM Intrm. 82] FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA, Plaintiff, v. PABLO FINEY, Defendant. CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1982-3501 AMENDED ORDER DENYING PETITION [3 FSM Intrm. 83] ORDER DENYING MOTIONS Before Richard H. Benson Associate Justice FSM Supreme Court December 10, 1986 APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiff: Clement Mulalap, Esq., P.O. Box 435 Yap, FSM 96943 For the Defendant: John A. Brackett FSM Public Defender Public Defender's Office Pohnpei, FSM 96941 * * * * HEADNOTES Criminal Law and Procedure - Pleas and Sentencing There is no provision in the National Criminal Code of the Federated States of Micronesia permitting the court to modify a sentence after judgment. The rules only permit the court to reduce a sentence within 120 days after the sentence has been imposed. FSM v. Finey, 3 FSM Intrm. 82, 84 (Truk 1986). Criminal Law and Procedure - Pleas and Sentencing The only power given to the executive to modify a sentence is the power to grant pardons and reprieves. FSM v. Finey, 3 FSM Intrm. 82, 84 (Truk 1986). Criminal Law and Procedure - Pleas and Sentencing No authority exists for the Court to grant home visits. FSM v. Finey, 3 FSM Intrm. 82, 84 (Truk 1986). * * * * COURT'S OPINION RICHARD H. BENSON, Associate Justice: This matter came before the Court on December 10, 1986 on the petition of the defendant for an order releasing the defendant each Sunday to do domestic labor at his house. The government consents. The defendant is imprisoned for eight years pursuant to the judgment filed February 4, 1983. [3 FSM Intrm. 84] As to the power of this Court to grant the petition, there is no provision in the National Criminal Code of the Federated States of Micronesia permitting the court to modify a sentence after judgment. The rules only permit the court to reduce a sentence within 120 days after the sentence is imposed. As to the power of the executive to modify a sentence, the only power granted is that of pardon and reprieve. FSM Const. art. X, § 2(c). In the United States the defendant points out the executive may have the power to parole, to reduce sentences through "good time" credit earned by the prisoner, and to extend the limits of confinement. 18 U.S.C. § 4082(b). Because alternatives ameliorating or reducing sentences by the executive do not exist in the Federated States of Micronesia, the defendant urges the court to retain jurisdiction in criminal cases in order to respond to changing conditions during the service of sentences of imprisonment and to accommodate the needs of prisoners who have demonstrated good conduct. The defendant also urges that the United States' pattern of the court losing jurisdiction after sentencing not be automatically adopted without a consideration of the suitability of such a pattern in the Federated States of Micronesia, see Rauzi v. FSM, 2 FSM Intrm. 8, 15 (Pon. 1985), and urges that the decision be consistent with Micronesian customs. FSM Const. art. XI, § 11. The Court's attention is not directed to any other jurisdiction that permits its courts to have the continuing power to modify sentences. The Court concludes that no authority exists for it to grant this petition and allow the home visits; it is unwilling to assume such authority. The petition is accordingly denied. So ordered this 29th day of January, 1987.