Opinion ID: 1869923
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: excessive sentences claim

Text: [10-12] Hamilton's sentences fall within the statutory limits for third degree sexual assault of a child and attempted first degree sexual assault. Third degree sexual assault of a child is a Class IIIA felony, [34] punishable by a maximum of 5 years' imprisonment, a $10,000 fine, or both, with a minimum of zero year's imprisonment. [35] Hamilton was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 3 to 5 years for this offense. Attempted first degree sexual assault is a Class III felony, [36] punishable by a minimum of 1 year's imprisonment and a maximum of 20 years' imprisonment, a $25,000 fine, or both. [37] Hamilton was sentenced to 10 to 15 years' imprisonment for this offense. Thus, we review the sentences for abuse of discretion, which occurs when a trial court's decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence. [38] [13] The appropriateness of a sentence is necessarily a subjective judgment and includes the sentencing judge's observation of the defendant's demeanor and attitude and all the facts and circumstances surrounding the defendant's life. [39] Hamilton argues the trial court abused its discretion by not giving proper weight and consideration to these factors when imposing his sentence. He argues that the sentencing order neglected his individual circumstances and that the trial court failed to assess the most effective rehabilitation measure, which Hamilton believes would include drug and alcohol rehabilitation. At the time of sentencing, the court stated that [h]aving regard for the nature and circumstances of the crimes and the history, character and condition of [Hamilton], the Court finds that imprisonment of [Hamilton] is necessary because a lesser sentence would depreciate the seriousness of his crimes and promote disrespect for the law. Hamilton was 29 years old at the time of sentencing. The presentence investigation assessed Hamilton at a very high risk to reoffend and noted that he had substantial and long-running alcohol and drug abuse problems. Hamilton's record included juvenile offenses committed in 1993 and 1995 and numerous adult offenses committed between 1996 and 2007. While none of the prior adult offenses were felonies and the district court characterized them as `[relatively minor,' they indicate a pattern of unlawful behavior. The district court acknowledged the fact Hamilton's no contest pleas spared his young victims from having to testify, but it is also true that Hamilton benefited from the plea agreement. Taking into consideration all of the relevant factors, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Hamilton as it did.