Sentences Outside the Standard Range

This is the case of the Commonwealth v. Kimbrough from 2005. In this case, the ruling stated that a judge must state sufficient reasons for a sentence outside the guideline range. These cases definitely require an aggressive Lehigh County criminal lawyer to present significant mitigating circumstances and counter any aggravating circumstances.  Specific preparation with a client will be important to appropriate remorse is express.  

In this case, the defendant was sentenced to 20 years to 40 years on the third degree murder charge, and 10 months to 24 months on each of the reckless endangering charges, all sentences were run consecutively to one another. Thus, the aggregate term of imprisonment is 21 years and eight months to 44 years. The trial court, in the course of imposing sentence, noted that it had the benefit of, and had reviewed, a presentence report. The trial court also noted that it found the defendants assertions of remorse unconvincing and incredible. Furthermore, the trial court determined that the defendant was an extremely poor candidate for rehabilitation. Upon review of the record, the Pennsylvania Superior Court determined that the aggregate sentence of not less than 21 years and eight months and not greater than 44 years imprisonment is not consistent with any specific provision of the Sentencing Code

The Superior Court concluded that the trial court properly considered all relevant factors and at the reasons it gave for the sentence imposed were permissible under the law. At sentencing, the trial court referred to the presentence investigation report. The record fully supported the conclusion that the trial court was adequately informed; that it properly considered and enunciated its reasons for the sentences imposed beyond the minimum aggravated range of the guidelines; and that it fashioned an appropriate and reasonable sentence. The Superior Court saw no abuse of discretion and dismissed the defendant's claim to the contrary.