Consecutive sentences

Holding that the trial court “articulated particularized reasons that demonstrated that the ‘strong medicine’ of consecutive sentencing was warranted,” the court affirmed. Defendant’s claim “that the sentencing guidelines adequately accounted for his criminal history” was unavailing. As the trial court noted, he “had six prior felony convictions and 25 misdemeanor convictions. Even though PRV 2 accounted for four prior felony convictions,” it did not account for his two remaining felony convictions. In addition, although PRV 5 accounted for seven prior misdemeanor convictions, it “did not account for defendant’s remaining 18 misdemeanor convictions. Finally, neither PRV 2 nor PRV 5 accounted for defendant’s propensity to commit theft-related and property-related offenses.” Further, the record did not support his claim “that the trial court failed to adequately explain its reasons for imposing consecutive sentences.” Rather, the record showed “that the trial court articulated several particularized reasons in support of its decision.” The court noted that the “trial court’s first reason for imposing consecutive sentences was defendant’s disregard for others while he was in the midst of these crime sprees.” This consideration was supported with specific facts and by defendant’s own statement that he stole to support his daily meth use and that he hurt a lot of people who believed in him. The next factor considered was deterrence of others. “‘The purpose of consecutive-sentencing statutes is to deter persons from committing multiple crimes by removing the security of concurrent sentencing.’” Thus, the court held that “the trial court properly cited deterrence as a justification for imposing consecutive sentences. The trial court next considered the nature of [his] criminal conduct. The court’s findings pertaining to the nature of defendant’s criminal conduct were supported by specific details from this case, and this Court has recognized that the circumstances surrounding the sentencing offense are an appropriate consideration in imposing consecutive sentences.” Finally, the court found “the trial court properly considered defendant’s extensive criminal history, which provided ample justification for the imposition of consecutive sentences.”