Opinion ID: 2054052
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Court's Rejection of Fleming's Guilty Plea as a Mitigating Factor

Text: Finally, Fleming contends that the court ignored his guilty plea. That is not true. The court carefully considered Fleming's guilty plea and determined that it was not enough to mitigate his appalling crimes. I recognize that he has pled guilty. Commonly people say that spares the victim the agony of having to go through a trial and to a certain extent there is a matter of truth but sometimes in circumstances like this it's easier for the person to go through a trial than it is to not get the chance to testify and bring the facts out. . . . . The Defendant has an extremely violent history and I think that along with the seriousness of the cases here warrant the maximum sentences. . . . I think the real question here  I'll back-up a second. As far as mitigation, I really don't find that there are any weighty mitigating circumstances that would justify less than the maximum. (Emphasis added.) A court's statements must be read in context. State v. Farnham, 479 A.2d 887, 889 (Me.1984); Cf. State v. Googins, 640 A.2d 1060 (Me.1994) (jury instructions reviewed as a whole). The court has wide discretion to balance mitigating and aggravating factors. State v. Lemieux, 600 A.2d 1099, 1101 (Me. 1991). The sentencing court properly considered Fleming's guilty plea and was under no obligation to reduce Fleming's sentence. The entry is: Sentence on Count V vacated. Sentences on Counts I through IV affirmed. All concurring.