Opinion ID: 2557932
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Final Sentence

Text: [¶ 12] In determining the final sentence, the court determines what, if any, portion of the jail sentence should be suspended, and how much probation is appropriate. Robbins, 2010 ME 62, ¶ 10, 999 A.2d at 939. We also review this third step for an abuse of discretion. Id. [¶ 13] Here, the court first determined that a four-year period of probation following the unsuspended portion of the sentence was appropriate. See 17-A M.R.S. § 1202(1) (2009) (A person convicted of a Class A crime may be placed on probation for a period not to exceed 4 years. . . .). It then determined how much of the maximum sentence to suspend in light of the sentencing goals set out in 17-A M.R.S. § 1151 (2009). [4] See Reese, 2010 ME 30, ¶ 32, 991 A.2d at 818 (holding that sentencing court appropriately considered relevant factors in light of sentencing goals when determining whether any portion of the sentence should be suspended). [¶ 14] In arriving at a final sentence of thirty years, all but twenty years suspended, with four years of probation, the court explicitly considered the gravity and seriousness of the offense; concern for public safety; deterrence and rehabilitation; and the potential for Dalli's cooperation in his rehabilitation. Because the court did not disregard the statutory sentencing factors applicable to this case, its final sentence, in which it suspended one-third of the maximum sentence and imposed a lengthy period of probation, does not reflect an abuse of discretion. The entry is: Sentence affirmed.