Opinion ID: 202732
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Assessing Bell's Criminal History Points

Text: 13 Bell asks us to review the district court's determination that his eight juvenile offenses were not consolidated into two clusters for sentencing. 5 Maine law does not provide a formal mechanism for consolidation of charges for sentencing. 6 Therefore, we must look at the face of the record to determine whether we detect any formal indicia of consolidation. See Correa, 114 F.3d at 317. 14 As to Cluster A, Bell argues that consolidation is evidenced by: (1) the Conditions of Probation order bearing the docket numbers for the terrorizing and petty theft charges; (2) the unified dispositional hearing for all three charges; (3) a single offer sheet from the District Attorney's office; (4) the involvement of the same prosecutor, district attorney, and judge in all three matters; and (5) the comprehensive approach to sentencing that saw a structured sentence designed with a view toward its collective impact. In contrast, the government points out that there was no formal order of consolidation or docket entry suggesting consolidation, all three charges retained their distinct docket numbers, and different sentences were imposed for each crime. 15 Bell's arguments as to Cluster A are unpersuasive given the categorical approach adopted by this circuit. Indeed, the only potential indicium of formal consolidation on the face of the record is the Conditions of Probation order bearing the docket numbers of two of the crimes. However, the fact that the Conditions of Probation order governed two of the three offenses is not sufficient evidence of consolidation where each crime retained its original docket number and received a distinct sentence. This is particularly so where our standard of review is clear error. Therefore, we affirm the district court's conclusion that no consolidation occurred as to Cluster A. 16 Bell has a stronger argument that the Cluster B crimes were consolidated for sentencing. His most persuasive evidence of formal consolidation is the Judgment and Commitment order bearing the docket numbers of all five crimes, which mandated a unified sentence of confinement until age 19. However, as noted above, there is contradictory evidence in the record as well. For example, each crime retained its original docket number throughout the adjudication. In addition, the individual docket sheets indicate that the court imposed separate, concurrent sentences as to each crime, and that somewhat different sentences were imposed as to three of the crimes. Given this contradictory evidence, it would be difficult to conclude that the district court was clearly erroneous had it reached either result — either that the charges were or were not consolidated for sentencing. Therefore, given our deferential standard of review, we decline to assign error to the judge's conclusion as to Cluster B.