[directive] These Guidelines are not intended in any way to impede the orderly disposition of cases or to require prosecutors to conduct supplemental investigations to obtain information that is not readily available in the case file.  Rather, prosecutors are expressly permitted to tender plea offers based upon a good faith assessment of the facts and circumstances then known to the prosecutor.  Prosecutors are permitted to indicate on the worksheet that there are insufficient facts available to determine the applicability of a given fact or circumstance, in which event that fact or circumstance would not be used in the determination of the appropriate plea offer.  As noted in Section 5, ¶5, in determining the total number of aggravating and mitigating points, a prosecutor may only count the points from one Aggravating Factor within each numbered category of related factors (e.g., “Risk of Injury to Officers or Others,” “Organization,” etc.).  This is necessary to avoid the inappropriate “double counting” of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, since the specific factors defined in a single Aggravating or Mitigating Factor Category are, by definition, closely related and will often overlap.  When more than one specific factor within a given numbered category applies, the prosecutor shall count the points for the specific aggravating or mitigating factor within the category that has the highest point value.  For example, if the defendant will be pleading guilty to a Brimage-eligible school zone offense for conduct that occurred within 500 feet of a public park and also within a designated “Quality of Life” Special Enforcement Zone, the defendant’s conduct would be subject to both Aggravating Factors 1b and 1c in the “Community Impact” Aggravating Factor Category.  The prosecutor in these circumstances would not be permitted to combine the point values for these two applicable aggravating factors, but rather would be required to add +3 points to the grand total based on the point value assigned to Aggravating Factor 1c (which is greater than the +2 point value assigned to Aggravating Factor 1b).  A prosecutor may nonetheless consider multiple factors within a single numbered category when the prosecutor is authorized to assign a point value within a given range, rather than a fixed, predetermined point value.  For example, if the defendant attempted to destroy evidence at the time of arrest (Aggravating Factor 3d, which is worth +3 points) and also physically resisted the arrest (Aggravating Factor 3b, worth +3 to +5 points), the prosecutor would not be permitted to add point values for these two related aggravating factors together, but would be permitted to consider the lower-valued aggravating factor (the Page 68 Attorney General Brimage Guidelines 2 (2004 Revisions) defendant attempted to destroy evidence) in deciding whether to award +3, +4 or +5 points for the higher-valued Aggravating Factor 3b (Resisting Arrest).  The prosecutor in these circumstances, in other words, could in the exercise of discretion award +5 points under this Aggravating Factor Category even though the nature of the defendant’s resistance to arrest, considered in isolation from the defendant’s attempt to destroy evidence, might not otherwise have justified awarding points at the upper end of the range authorized for Aggravating Factor 3b.  10.1