Appeals court hears challenge to 24-year consecutive sentence for crimes committed at 14

An appellate panel heard arguments over whether a trial court abused its discretion by imposing complete consecutive prison terms that total 24 years for offenses committed when the defendant was 14.

Defense counsel (identified in the transcript as Mister Flanagan) told the court the sentencing court ‘‘abused its discretion in ordering complete consecutive sentences’’ and did not give sufficient weight to the defendant’s juvenile status. Flanagan said the aggregate sentence is excessive relative to the offender’s age at the time and asked the court to modify the sentence or remand for a new sentencing hearing.

The state, represented ‘‘on behalf of the state’’ by Lacey Wilbur, urged the panel to affirm. Wilbur told the court the indictment covered activity from ages 14 to 18 across multiple victims, including family members, and that the trial court explicitly relied on the long span of undetected activity, the relationship between the defendant and victims, and the nature and extent of the harm when imposing consecutive terms. Wilbur said those factors supported the trial court’s exercise of discretion.

The defense framed its argument around the Perry precedent cited in briefing, saying that after a court determines a defendant is eligible for consecutive sentencing it must still determine whether and to what degree consecutive terms are appropriate based on the facts and circumstances. Flanagan argued the sentencing court focused on each individual victim ‘‘the trees’’ and lost sight of the overall measure ‘‘the forest’’ when setting a 24-year total for conduct committed as a juvenile.

Counsel and the bench exchanged factual clarifications: the defendant is now 25, the convictions the defendant pled to concern acts committed when he was 14, and sentencing materials referenced multiple victims and a span of charged conduct. Wilbur told the court the defendant was cousin to two of the victims and that one victim identified in the transcripts as AK had an older sister whose conduct was unindicted because the defendant was under 14 at the time; RF is identified in the record as a named victim.

Defense counsel said he did not contest certain term designations (including a referenced six-year term), but reiterated that the cumulative consecutive terms amounted to an abuse of discretion given the defendant’s juvenile status and the sentencing principles that require the total punishment be ‘‘justly deserved’’ and no greater than necessary.

After oral argument, the panel thanked counsel, said it would take the matter under advisement and concluded the day’s docket. The court indicated it will resume the calendar the following morning at 09:30.