Opinion ID: 2324428
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Enhanced Sentence for PFDCF Charges

Text: Wynn's final argument is that the Superior Court erroneously enhanced the sentence on the PFDCF charges, because they were not the primary or lead charge. He claims that because Assault was the predicate offense for which the PFDCF was based, the two Assault in the Second Degree charges remained the primary charges. Therefore, it was error for the sentencing court to enhance the sentence for the PFDCF charges, because it should have enhanced the sentence for the assault charges. In response, the State argues that the PFDCF charges were the lead charges, because those charges were Class B felonies that carried a greater maximum sentence than the Assault in the Second Degree charges, which were Class D felonies. The State also contends that the sentencing judge believed the weapons charges to be significant when the judge stated: Gun violence is rampant in this city, as it is elsewhere, and something needs to be done so as to protect citizens . . . from random senseless gunfire that they did nothing to deserve. Here, each Assault in the Second Degree conviction resulted in five years of incarceration, suspended after eighteen months for six months at Level IV supervision, followed by eighteen months of probation. For each PFDCF conviction, Wynn received ten years of incarceration. Under the SENTAC Benchbook guidelines, the presumptive sentence for each PFDCF conviction is three years, which is the minimum mandatory sentence required by statute. [16] The statutory sentencing range for a PFDCF charge (Class B felony), however, may be up to twenty-five years of incarceration. [17] The SENTAC Benchbook guidelines provide that: When an offender is sentenced on multiple charges, only the primary charge should carry an enhanced penalty based upon prior criminal history. All other charges should receive penalties consistent with or lower than the presumptive sentence for the offense, unless aggravated by some specific factor to the individual charge. In this way, judges can impose serious penalties when necessary and construct meaningful probation sentences to follow incarceration. [18] As these guidelines acknowledge, it is within the sentencing judge's discretion to impose a more severe penalty where the circumstances justify such a result. Moreover, as Wynn concedes, the SENTAC guidelines are not binding upon the Superior Court. We need not address whether the sentencing judge erred in determining which charges constituted the lead charges, because the judge enhanced the sentence for the PFDCF charges based on the serious nature of Wynn's conduct. The judge found that the initial encounter between Wynn and the party guests was trivial and was something that . . . should have been forgotten five minutes after it was over. But instead, Wynn went home and armed [himself] and returned to the party with the intent of injuring or killing someone at that party. He then ignored the partygoers' attempts to defuse the situation and responded by firing into a helpless, unarmed group of people. . . . On these facts, the sentencing judge did not abuse his discretion in enhancing the sentence for the PFDCF charges.