Sentencing Notes
Sentencing Principles and Guidelines
Week 12 Overview
This week's focus is on sentencing, covering key principles, statutory frameworks, and case law. The goal is to understand how judges determine appropriate sentences, considering both the crime and the offender. The course aims to equip students and legal professionals with a comprehensive understanding of sentencing laws, guidelines, and practices.
Core Concepts in Sentencing
Sentencing Discretion: Judges have significant discretion in determining sentences, based on the objective features of the crime and the subjective features of the offender. This discretion is guided by legislation, case law, and sentencing principles, but allows for tailoring sentences to individual circumstances.
Objective vs. Subjective Features: Objective features pertain to the crime itself, such as the degree of violence, premeditation, and harm caused. Subjective features relate to the offender, including their criminal history, personal circumstances, remorse, and prospects for rehabilitation.
Statutory Framework: The Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) provides a framework for sentencing options and considerations. This Act outlines the types of sentences available, the factors a judge must consider, and the procedures to be followed during sentencing.
Case Law: Decisions from the High Court and Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA) guide sentencing practices. Precedent set by these courts clarifies the interpretation and application of sentencing legislation.
Markarian v R: Key Sentencing Principles
Context: This case involved a heroin drug offense where the defendant was sentenced to 8 years. The appellant argued the CCA erred by adopting a staged approach to calculating the sentence. Markarian v R is a landmark case that clarifies the principles and processes involved in sentencing, particularly concerning the role of appellate courts in reviewing sentencing decisions.
Staged Sentencing Process: The High Court noted that a 'staged sentencing process' could mean either the sentencer's reasoning was sequential or that specific numerical allowances were made for factors like assistance to authorities or a guilty plea.
Sequential Reasoning: A structured approach where judges consider various factors in a step-by-step manner.
Numerical Allowances: Assigning specific numerical values to different factors (e.g., reducing a sentence by a certain percentage for a guilty plea) to arrive at a final sentence.
Error Identification:
Specific Error: Identifying errors in principle, extraneous or irrelevant matters influencing the decision, factual mistakes, or failure to consider material considerations.
Categories of Errors: Identifying errors in sentencing involves several categories:
Errors in Principle: Misapplication or misinterpretation of legal principles.
Extraneous Factors: Considering irrelevant matters that should not influence the sentencing decision.
Factual Mistakes: Basing the sentence on incorrect information.
Failure to Consider Material Considerations: Neglecting to take into account significant factors relevant to the case.
Unreasonable Result: Determining if the final sentence is unreasonable or plainly unjust (manifest excess or inadequacy).
Manifest Excess or Inadequacy: A sentence that falls outside the range of reasonable outcomes, indicating a clear error in the sentencing process.
Legislative Basis: Any consideration of sentencing principles must begin with applicable legislation, particularly the Sentencing Act. The primary source for understanding sentencing parameters and guidelines is the relevant legislation.
Discretionary Judgment: Sentencing involves a discretionary judgment where the sentencer must consider all relevant factors. There is no single correct sentence, and judges have flexibility within the statutory regime. Judges must weigh various factors and exercise their judgment to determine a fair and appropriate sentence within the bounds of the law.
Prosecution Appeals and Error
Burden of Proof: In prosecution appeals, the prosecution must demonstrate either SPECIFIC ERROR or MANIFEST INADEQUACY in the original sentence. The prosecution carries the responsibility of proving that the initial sentence was flawed due to a specific error or was manifestly inadequate.
Lowndes v The Queen: A CCA cannot substitute its opinion for the sentencing judge's merely because it would have exercised discretion differently. Appellate courts should not overturn a sentencing decision simply because they would have imposed a different sentence; they must find a significant error or inadequacy.
Relevance of Maximum Penalties
Legislative Intent: Maximum penalties set by legislatures are not mere formalities but serve as sentencing yardsticks. Maximum penalties reflect the legislature's view of the seriousness of particular offenses and provide a benchmark for sentencing.
Stockdale and Devlin Observation:
Maximum sentences may have little relevance if fixed at a very high level or may be highly relevant and create difficulties. The relevance of maximum sentences can vary based on how they are set; extremely high maximums may offer limited guidance.
Changes in maximum sentences can indicate Parliament's view on the inadequacy of previous penalties. Shifts in maximum penalties can signal a change in societal or parliamentary attitudes toward the severity of certain crimes.
Comparison: Judges should compare the worst possible case with the case at hand to contextualize the sentence. To properly assess the appropriate sentence, judges should compare the circumstances of the current case with the hypothetical "worst possible case" for that offense.
Hulme J's Error: The court found that Hulme J erroneously looked first at the maximum penalty and made proportional deductions, using the prescribed maximum impermissibly. Hulme J's approach of starting with the maximum penalty and deducting from it was deemed an incorrect application of sentencing principles.
Quantity vs. Facts: The appellant argued successfully that too great an emphasis was placed on quantity without regard to the facts of the case. The court recognized that focusing solely on quantitative aspects (e.g., drug quantity) without considering the specific facts of the case can lead to unjust sentences.
Sequential vs. Instinctive Synthesis Approaches
Sequential Approach: The court rejected universal rules dictating a sequential or two-tiered approach to sentencing. A rigid, step-by-step approach to sentencing was deemed inappropriate, as it may not allow for the necessary flexibility and holistic consideration of all relevant factors.
Instinctive Synthesis: This is a process where, after weighing all relevant factors, the court reaches a conclusion on the appropriate penalty. It should not deny the requirement for a sentencer to give reasons for the sentence passed. Instinctive synthesis involves a holistic assessment of all factors to arrive at a sentence, while still requiring judges to provide clear reasoning for their decisions.
Wong Case: The High Court cautioned against a mathematical approach to sentencing involving increments or decrements from a predetermined range, emphasizing that it departs from principle. Mathematical approaches to sentencing, such as adding or subtracting specific amounts for various factors, were discouraged as they can deviate from established sentencing principles.
Conflicting Elements: Sentencing involves balancing conflicting and contradictory elements, and attributing particular weight to some factors without considering others can be incorrect. Judges must navigate the complexities of balancing competing factors and avoid giving undue weight to certain elements at the expense of others.
R v Thomson: Spigelman CJ reviewed authorities against the two-stage approach, favoring instinctive synthesis. Chief Justice Spigelman's review supported the instinctive synthesis approach over the more structured two-stage method.
Critique of Two-Stage Sentencing
AB v The Queen: McHugh and Hayne JJ expressed the view that the two-stage approach was wrong in principle. Justices McHugh and Hayne criticized the two-stage approach, arguing it was flawed in principle.
R v Gallagher: Gleeson CJ noted the difficulty of separating out individual considerations such as a guilty plea, contrition, and cooperation with authorities, as they form a complex of interrelated factors. Chief Justice Gleeson highlighted the challenge of isolating individual factors like guilty pleas or cooperation, as they are often interconnected.
Distortion of Balancing Exercise: Attributing specific numerical or proportional value to some features distorts the already difficult balancing exercise. Assigning specific numerical values to certain factors can skew the overall balancing process required in sentencing.
Endorsement of Instinctive Synthesis
R v Sharma and R v Whyte: The CCA NSW endorsed instinctive synthesis as a general rule but allowed for departures for separate consideration of objective circumstances. The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal supported instinctive synthesis but permitted departures for the separate consideration of objective circumstances.
Transparency: The law favors transparency, requiring accessible reasoning for victims, parties, appeal courts, and the public. Transparency in sentencing is essential to ensure that the reasoning behind a sentence is clear and accessible to all stakeholders.
Arithmetical Process: Indulgence in an arithmetical process may better serve transparency in some cases, particularly simple ones. In simpler cases, an arithmetical approach may enhance transparency by providing a clear and easily understandable rationale.
Crown Appeals and Sentencing Courts
Fair Consideration: The Crown is entitled to proper consideration of an appeal duly made, but the High Court is generally not a sentencing court. The Crown has the right to have its appeal properly considered, but the High Court typically does not act as a sentencing court.
Remittal: The court may remit the matter to the CCA for disposition in accordance with its reasons. The court may send the case back to the Court of Criminal Appeal for a decision consistent with its findings.
Statutory Framework and General Approach
Markarian as Foundation: Markarian sets out the general approach to sentencing, supplemented by detailed case law from the CCA. The principles established in Markarian form the foundation for sentencing, augmented by subsequent case law from the Court of Criminal Appeal.
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW): The primary statutory framework with which sentencing judges must comply. Sentencing judges must adhere to the provisions and guidelines outlined in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).
Maximum Penalties and S21A
Reduction of Penalties: Courts can always reduce penalties from the maximum specified in legislation (s21, Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999). Courts have the authority to impose sentences lower than the maximum penalties prescribed by law.
S21A Importance: This section sets out factors a court must take into account when determining an appropriate sentence. Section 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) is crucial as it lists the factors that must be considered when determining a sentence.
Aggravating Factors (s21A(2)):
Victim's occupation (police officer, emergency services worker, etc.)
Use of violence or weapons
Offender's record of previous convictions
Offence committed in company or in the presence of a child
Gratuitous cruelty
Substantial harm caused by the offence
Motivation by hatred or prejudice
Disregard for public safety
Risk to national security
Abuse of trust or authority
Victim vulnerability
Multiple victims or series of criminal acts
Planned or organized criminal activity
Financial gain
Offence committed while a child was a passenger in the offender’s vehicle.
Mitigating Factors (s21A(3)):
Injury or harm not substantial
Offence not planned or organized
Offender provoked or acting under duress
No or insignificant criminal record
Good character
Unlikely to re-offend
Good prospects of rehabilitation
Remorse shown (acceptance of responsibility and reparation)
Lack of awareness of consequences
Guilty plea
Pre-trial disclosure by the defense
Assistance to law enforcement
Offer to plead guilty to a different offence.
Limitations: Courts cannot consider aggravating or mitigating factors if contrary to any Act or rule of law. The consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors is subject to legal constraints and cannot contradict existing laws.
Special Rules (s21A(5A, 5AA)):
Good character or lack of previous convictions is not to be considered a mitigating factor for child sexual offences if it assisted the offender in the commission of the crime.
Self-induced intoxication is not a mitigating factor.
Definitions (s21A(6)): Definitions provided for child sexual offence, prescribed traffic offence, self-induced intoxication, and serious personal violence offence.
Guilty Pleas and Discounts
Mandatory Discount (s25D(1)): Courts must apply a sentencing discount for the utilitarian value of a guilty plea. A sentencing discount is required to acknowledge the practical benefits of a guilty plea.
Discount Amounts (s25D(2)):
25% reduction if accepted in committal proceedings
10% reduction if pleaded at least 14 days before trial or complied with pre-trial notice requirements
5% reduction if neither of the above apply
Summary Offences: Discount at the discretion of the court, usually 25% if pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity (R v Thomson).
Other Considerations
Assistance to Authorities (s23): Discount depends on the utility of the assistance. The extent of the discount depends on how helpful the assistance is to law enforcement.
Time in Custody (s24): Courts must consider periods spent in custody for the offense, such as when bail is refused. Periods of pre-trial detention must be taken into account during sentencing.
Non-Custodial Options
Alternatives to Imprisonment: Sentencing courts must consider alternatives before imprisonment. Courts are required to explore non-custodial options before imposing a prison sentence.
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Sentencing Options) Act 2017: Abolished suspended sentences and good behavior bonds. This amendment altered the landscape of sentencing options by removing suspended sentences and good behavior bonds.
Conditional Release Orders (CROs):
Issued pursuant to s9 and pt 8 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
Deferred sentencing where the accused promises to comply with conditions for a specified period.
Can be placed up to two years (s95).
Must include conditions that the offender not commit any offence and appear before the court if called upon (s98(2)).
Community Correction Orders (CCOs):
Up to three years (s85).
Must include conditions that the offender not commit any offence and appear before court.
Additional conditions can include curfew, community service, and refraining from drugs or alcohol.
Find Offence Proved by Take No Action:
Court may find the offence proved but decline to record a conviction.
Considerations under s10(3): a person’s character, antecedents, age, health, mental condition, the trivial nature of the offence, and extenuating circumstances.
Conditional Discharge (s10): Similar to CRO but without formally recording a conviction.
Conviction with No Further Penalty (s10A): Court may convict the accused but impose no further penalty.
Deferral of Sentence for Rehabilitation
R v Trindall:
Courts can release a person on bail for up to 12 months to explore rehabilitation possibilities (s11).
Favorable reports can influence the final sentence.
Providing evidence is much better than opinions, assertions by the offender and what happened over a short period of time.
Intensive Correction Orders (ICO)
Orders: An ICO directs a sentence or sentences to be served by intensive correction in the community (s7(1)).
Community Safety: s66(1) states that community safety must be the paramount consideration when determining whether to make an ICO.
Exclusions: ICOs are not available for prescribed serious offences such as murder or terrorism.
Considerations: When determining whether to make an ICO the court must also consider the contents of any assessment report obtained in relation to the offence, and evidence from a community corrections officer and any other information presented to the court which may affect the decision.
Standard Conditions (s73): Conditions include that the offender must not commit any offense and must submit to supervision by community corrections officer.
Additional Considerations (s73A (2)): Conditions outlined can include at least one additional condition such as a home detention condition, a non-association condition, or an electronic monitoring condition.
Custodial Orders
Drug Court: May impose orders requiring compulsory drug treatment detention (s5A).
Imprisonment as Last Resort (s5(1)): Sentencing court must be satisfied that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate. Imprisonment should only be imposed when no other penalty is suitable.
Non-Parole Period (s44(1)): The court generally must set the term of the sentence and a non-parole period. The court typically specifies the total sentence length and the minimum time the offender must serve before being eligible for parole.
Parole Authority: Determines whether a prisoner should be released or not (Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 pt 6). The Parole Authority decides whether an inmate should be released on parole.
Non-Parole Period Guidelines (s44(2)): Unless there are special circumstances, the non-parole period should be at least 2/3 of the total term. The non-parole period should generally be at least two-thirds of the overall sentence unless there are exceptional circumstances.
No Non-Parole Period (s45, s46): The court may decline to set a non-parole period, and must do so if the sentence is for less than 6 months. A non-parole period may not be set, and must not be if the sentence is shorter than six months.
Sentence Start Date (s48, ss54A-54D): The start date and eligibility for release must be specified, usually starting from the date of arrest. The commencement date of the sentence and parole eligibility must be clearly stated, typically from the date of arrest.
R v Way: Emphasized that the 'standard non-parole period' should be considered mandatory unless there was a reason to depart from it
Muldrock v R: The high court held that that the standard non-parole period was not mandatory but only a guide to the appopriate sentence.
Life Sentence
Mandatory Sentences (s61): Crimes Act 1900 provides for mandatory life imprisonment under certain conditions relating to murder and serious heroin or cocaine trafficking offences. Life imprisonment is mandated under specific conditions for murder and severe drug trafficking offenses.
General Power to Reduce Penalties (s21): In most cases the court may still impose a sentence of imprsionment for a specified term instead of life (61 (3)). Subjective Features
Subjective Features: The court still must note where the discretion can be exercised where the subjective features of the case displace the need for maximum penalty where life imprisonment appears to be the minimum.
Worst-Case Examples
R v Fasers: A man convicted of murdering three young children had his life sentence reduced due to a severe mental disorder. A life sentence was reduced due to the offender's severe mental disorder.
R v Tan: The court considered whether a killing without 'intent to kill' could be a worst-case example of murder. Ground 1 was that his honour erred categorizing the offence as falling into worst category of murder.
TAN V R 2010 NSWCCA 207:
Poured acid ok victim who died due to injuries, not intended as murder.
It was decided that this could not be considered an example of the worst case of murder. This was supported by previous cases such as R v Milhailovic, Morgan and Young; R v Craig; R v Crofts; R v Keir; R v Irani.
Other Key Considerations:
Nothing is to be Gained from an extensive quote but the seriousness of the offence is not judged with offender intention also taken into account matters such as motivation, infliction of cruelty or demonstrated criminality going beyond the necessary incidents of the killing.
R v Hillsley demonstrates the court shows willingness to increasesentence to life imprisonment as seen in certain passages.
Veem v the Queen supported this when referring to cases that fall within the worst category for cases where the penalty is prescribed.
R v Twala demonstrated that a case should be point to features that are of very great heinousness and the absence of mitigating factors to be in the worst category.
Further remarks made in sentence about community proteciton (61 (1) of the crimes act 19000): implicit from these remarks is the conclusion that is released there is risk with applicant re offending if their own intreats are at state, that in mind this relevant to the determination of the sentence to be imposed.
Standard of Proof and Purposes of Sentencing
Standard of Proof: Mitigation factors require a balance of probabilities. Mitigating factors must be proven on the balance of probabilities.
Evidence Act 1995 Section 141 (NSW):
Section 141 states that police and agreed upon facts is not required any police facts.
Section 141 also states that neither side can contend with the facts.
Sentencing Purpose:
There is no consensus to to this.
Basic culture and gut feel.
Theories of Punishment
Retributivism:
'Just desserts'
'Eye for an eye, tooth for tooth.'
Punishing criminals is just in itself.
They should be punished.
Offenders deserve to suffer & the institution of punishment should inflict the suffering they deserve
Punishment must be equivalent to the level of wrongdoing
Punishing criminals is just in itself; it cannot be inflicted as a means of pursuing some other aim
Punishment does not turn on the likely achievement of desirable outcomes
Punishment is justified even when we are practically certain that attempts to achieve goals like deterrence or rehabilitation will fail
Backward looking, focusing on past events in order to determine whether punishment is justified
Utilitarianism:
Punishment is inherently bad due to the pain it causes the wrongdoer, but is ultimately justified
Concerned only with the likely future consequences of imposing punishment because this is outweighed by the good consequences stemming from it:
incapacitation,
deterrence, &
rehabilitation
They need to be removed from society.
Punishment is bad but necessary.
Looks to future rather than past
Criticism of Current Sentencing
Challenges: Sentencing is a research and knowledge wasteland.
An area of social policy that has changed little for over 100 years.
Directed by political or judicial hunches and 'common sense' without regard for scientific and social learning
Based on unproven assumptions about what punishment can achieve
Lacks a clear justification and focus
Failure to Match: Crime severity with penalty harshness - approx. 50% of Australian prisoners are incarcerated for non-sexual or non-violent offences
Expense: more than 100,000 per offender per annum in Australia
Findings:
We havent actually reduced crime we just make ourselves feel better for a bit.
Almost half of people released are back in within two years.
Australia has one of the worst rates of recidivism.
Creates more victim of crime. More crime. Sentences too short for rehabilitation
No correlating between inprisoning people and reducing crime 2 billion on adult 100 million on junvillie
1 in 3 drug issues - with 85 on drugs at the time. 40 percent did the crime to fund drugs - no stopping the crime without stopping the addiction.
Principles of Sentencing
The purposes of criminal punishment are various: protection of society, deterrence of the offender and of others who might be tempted to offend, retribution and reform.
The purposes overlap and none of them can be considered in isolation from the others when determining what is an appropriate sentence in a particular case. They are guideposts to the appropriate sentence but sometimes they point in different directions.
Punishment needs to weigh the contradiction and objectives: community protection, deterrence and rehabiliation.
Proportionality
Most fundamental principle of sentencing is to ensure that the severity of the penalty matches the seriousness of the offense.
It is a fundamental and immutable principle of sentencing that the sentence imposed must ultimately reflect the objective seriousness of the offence committed and there must be a reasonable proportionality between the sentence passed and the circumstances of the crime committed.
But how to we measure it? I do not think that the applicants history is such that that any punishment should be awarded which is not strictly proportionate to the gravity of the offence.
Considerations:
Veen no 1 : added on sentence for protection of the community, it was stated that you can not add on extra.
Veen no 2: Mentally ill, Veen no 2 stated that you can.
*. Proporationte must include protection of society but is very complex to measure.
The judge and the Magistrates were of the opinion that it was their duty to protect both the public and the appellant from herself by passing a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment. They fell into grave error in so thinking.
. The first thing to be said, and said very firmly indeed, is that Her Majesty's Courts are not dustbins into which the social services can sweep difficult members of the public. Still less should Her Majesty's judges use their sentencing powers to dispose of those who are socially inconvenient. If the Courts became disposers of those who are socially inconvenient the road ahead would lead to the destruction of liberty. The Courts exist to punish according to the law those convicted of offences. Sentences should fit crimes.
Consistency
Just as consistency in punishment - a reflection of the notion of equal justice - is a fundamental element in any rational and fair system of criminal justice, so inconsistency in punishment, because it is regarded as a badge of unfairness and unequal treatment under the law, is calculated to lead to an erosion of public confidence in the integrity of the administration of justice.
All discretionary decision-making carries with it the probability of some degree of inconsistency. But there are limits beyond which such inconsistency itself constitutes a form of injustice. The outcome of discretionary decision-making can never be uniform, but it ought to depend as little as possible upon the identity of the judge who happens to hear the case. Like cases should be treated in a like manner.
Totality & Parimony
Totality: ensuring that the total sentence remains 'just and appropriate' for the whole of the offending .It is where multiple offences have overlapping elements, the offender must not be punished twice for those elements. AttorneysGeneral v Tichyu (1982)
Totality: s53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 NSW aims to reduce the technical diffculties with this principle, allowing a court to impose an aggegate sentence, as opposed to mutiple separate sentences.
Parimony: Parimony requires the imposition of a sentence that is no more severe than is necessary to achieve the objectives of the sentence. We ought not to award the maximum which the offence will warrant, but rather the minimum which is consistent with a due regard for the public interest.
What's the minimum that will get the job done?
Imprisonment as a Last Resort, Parity & The De Simioni Principle
Imprisonment as Last Resort:
'The imposition of a sentence of imprisonment is a grave step for a court to take whether or not the offender’s liberty is immediately removed or curtailed.’ It is a high court decision that full time custody is punitive. Only available through 55 - note only get to if no no other crime is apprioate.
Parity:
Parity: The principle that co-offenders should be punished equally for the same offence, where their circumstances are comparable. - equal justicce, requires that like offenders should be trated in alike ammer but the parity principle also allows for diff sentences to be imposed upon like offenders to relect different degrees of culpabiltiy/different circumstances.
What if victims a are articulate and loves them compared to homeless victims b; that can still make different. Still a life no matter what!
The De Simioni principle:
This principle requires that decision-makers sentence offenders only for the offence of which they are convicted. It has statutory enforemtnet through the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999(NSW) s21A (4) which prohibits a court from taing into account circumstances of aggrevation or mitigatin if it would be contrary to any Act for those offences.
Be careful the police fact sheet!!!
Maximum Penalty & The Instinctive Sythnesis
The law sets out the maximum for the maximum penalty must a yardstick. In order to decide if its has way to low or low-end is important. This can be found in (Markarian v The Queen (2005) 28 CLR (357))
Instinctive Sythnesis: All the relevent factors into their head the are not allowed to use number to get there (wong v the Queen)
They should be weighing the competing factors (a pseudonym) v the King.
Key Processes, Penalities & Victim Impact Statements
Key Processes: the purpose os sentencing is to protect the community from the offender Crimes and ensure that the offender is adequantly punished.
Penalities: The court in sentencing should have the rearguard to the maximum penalty and other relevent facorts such as discounts . Also note that the court is to consider both the aggravating and mitigation factors and is to formulate a number during instinctive synthesis and bear in mind the purposes and formulate an appropriate penalty.
Victim Impact Statement: is controversial and should not be the heavy weighted decision of the judge and should be taken with consideration. Part 3 division 2
Key Aspects of Sentencing
To the public from others Crimes (sentencing procedure act .
To ensure the the public from offender and adequately punished.
Prevent crime from that .21A aggrevating, mitgating
Common sense + are are what have to focus on and balance the
The max penalty- any standered
A guideline judgement
Subjetive features
Plaes of discouints 23 ( ) synthesise
Purposes a crime for formuting
What are the three of 24 that are most approrop
Not alway get the most of what there
5a, S7 and S8 & Scenatios 2
Cusdioal sentence:
S5A - compulsory drug treatment detention
S7-intensive correction order
S8- community connection Order
S9 - cro
S10 disposal or charges
And s11, rehab, clarks case. Obey all reasoniable programs - for starff whilst there
CUDTODIAL & Non-CUDTODIAL ALTERNATIVES
Consdier CUSTODIAL SENTECES: note s ( 5 for any non to be appropriate and any in fulltime custofy, intenstive corection ect
Consdier No Custoal alternative; Community corectinos and can get a dissmissol of the charges . -10 and 10A, 11 and then rehab and then you have .
How much should weigh the sentencing in terms of other facotrs is up for discoussion.
S5-6-9-and some key laws regarding S and Q and N as wel (victim) from what other what happen with those are are key things to know as well.