On resentencing following Muldrock error, the appellate court is not bound by the factual findings of the sentencing judge and must take into account factual circumstances as they presently exist, including evidence not available at the original sentencing. Where the re-exercise of the sentencing discretion leads to a higher assessment of objective seriousness (here, rejection of psychosis finding, finding of intention to kill), the appeal may be dismissed on the basis that no lesser sentence is warranted in law, even though identifiable error has been established. The combined effect of youth and mental condition on moral culpability is compounding, not merely similar, and must be assessed separately for each factor.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.