A 53-year prisoner who went to the Supreme Court to appeal against three different sentences in three robbery incidents, nearly missed a heartbeat.

The five-member panel with Justice Paul, presiding, expressed the opinion that he should be given an enhanced sentence because the crimes he committed were “heinous.”

But the convict raised his hands in the air, pleading that the panel should take a second look at the various sentences.

The GNA gathered that he was serving 15 years on the first robbery incident, in the second robbery incident he was given 20 years and in the third robbery incident he was given 30 years by the same court.

His lawyer, Peter Nimo, filed an appeal against the sentences at the Supreme Court on the grounds that in all the cases he was a first-time offender, hence a reduction in the sentence.

The convict at the Supreme Court pleaded that he had left behind his children in the house, and he did not want them to become wayward and a burden on society.

He therefore pleaded that his sentence be reduced.

Although the Judges had earlier said he deserved an enhanced sentence, they later thought that the sentences should be maintained and same should not be disturbed.