Opinion ID: 1991128
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Imposition of the Statutory Maximum Sentence

Text: [¶ 7] Briggs also contends that it was improper for the court to impose the maximum allowable sentence because his prior criminal convictions were minimal. Briggs also contends that the court improperly considered his decision to not plead guilty as an aggravating factor. We agree with the State that both of these contentions go to the propriety, and not the legality of the sentence, and may not be considered in this direct appeal. Mahan, 1998 ME 143, ¶ 1 n. 3, 711 A.2d at 1315. The applicable statute authorizes sentences of a definite period of less than one year of imprisonment for Class D crimes. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1252(2)(D) (1983). For each of the crimes, Briggs received a statutorily authorized sentence of 364 days of imprisonment. The sentences are, therefore, not illegal. Briggs's additional contention that the trial court improperly considered Briggs's decision to go to trial and not enter a guilty plea addresses the propriety, and not the legality of the sentence. [3] The entry is: The sentence is vacated and remanded to the Superior Court for resentencing.