Why concurrent sentencing

The defendant may be convicted both of arson and attempted murder but could probably be given only a single sentence. Typically, the sentence would be for the more serious crime, which in this instance would probably be attempted murder. Sentencing might seem straightforward, but it tends to be more complicated than one might assume.

If you have sentencing questions, consider speaking to a criminal defense attorney. The information provided on this site is not legal advice, does not constitute a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or confidential relationship is or will be formed by use of the site.

The attorney listings on this site are paid attorney advertising. In some states, the information on this website may be considered a lawyer referral service. Please reference the Terms of Use and the Supplemental Terms for specific information related to your state. Grow Your Legal Practice. Meet the Editors. Additional Sentencing Considerations. Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences, and Double Punishment. Defendants are often sentenced for more than one charge.

Do these sentences "run" back to back, or are they served at the same time? Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences If a defendant is convicted of a number of crimes that carry lengthy prison terms, the difference between consecutive and concurrent sentences can be tremendous.

Example 1 Haydn Goseek was convicted of 20 counts of forgery for forging and cashing 20 separate checks. Example 2 Same case. For example, if a person is convicted of attempted murder and murder, then the judge will most likely give a concurrent sentence because convictions for attempting to commit a crime and committing the crime usually call for a concurrent sentence. However, a judge may impose a consecutive sentence if a defendant is convicted of multiple different crimes.

You may serve, say, one year in county jail for OWI and 3. Together, you would serve 4. On the other hand, if a defendant is convicted and sentenced to two 5-year sentences and two 8-year sentences, they would serve 8 years in prison under concurrent sentencing. If they were under consecutive sentencing, however, the defendant would serve 26 years in prison.

Wisconsin is one of those states where a judge has discretion in giving a concurrent or consecutive sentence. Some states have guidelines on when to issue consecutive sentences. For instance, Illinois requires a consecutive sentence to be given under the following circumstances:. As you can see, states like Illinois impose the worst-case scenario — consecutive sentences — for defendants who commit the most violent offenses. Judges know very well that consecutive sentences are harsh, which is why they tend to reserve this type of sentence for the most dangerous offenders.

The logic is that these types of offenders deserve a longer sentence and should be away from the public for as long as possible.

Since Wisconsin judges are not subject to strict determinate sentencing guidelines as Illinois judges are, for example, then they have the freedom to decide whether a defendant gets a concurrent or consecutive sentence. What factors will these judges consider when imposing a prison sentence? Ice , the Supreme Court held that states could give judges the discretion to decide whether a convicted defendant will serve a concurrent or consecutive sentence.

There are some cases in which the judge will have no discretion in this matter because a state law may require a consecutive sentence. A few years after the Supreme Court decision in Oregon v.

On the other hand, receiving stolen property even where the stolen property happens to be drugs is quite different from the act of criminality in possessing a drug for the purpose of sale: Hinchcliffe v R [] NSWCCA at [27]. Such a direction may not be made for an offence involving an assault against a correctional officer or a juvenile justice officer unless the court is of the opinion that there are special circumstances justifying such a direction: s 56 3A.

If the court makes an order under s 56 3 , that the second sentence is to be served concurrently or partly consecutively, the reasons for doing so have to be exposed: R v Hoskins [] NSWCCA at [31]. In that case the effective sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime and insufficient weight was given to general deterrence: R v Hoskins at [62]—[63] citing R v Fyffe [] NSWSC Section 57 sets out specific provisions for sentences of imprisonment imposed on an offender in relation to an offence involving an escape from lawful custody committed by the offender while an inmate of a correctional centre.

Part 6A Crimes Act sets out offences relating to escape from lawful custody. Section D provides for an offence for an inmate who escapes or attempts to escape from lawful custody.

Section 57 1A provides:. A sentence of imprisonment to which this section applies must be imposed after any other sentence of imprisonment that is imposed in the same proceedings. The offence of escape has been regarded by the courts as a serious offence, which potentially jeopardises the future of minimum security facilities and threatens the continued provision to prisoners of beneficial and humanitarian custodial arrangements and opportunities.

It may lead to additional restrictions being placed upon their access to external medical treatment, and it may also impede the progress of rehabilitation for offenders with favourable prospects, if conditions of detention are strengthened, in order to prevent escapes.

Where the offender has remained at large for a very lengthy period or has used the opportunity of being at large to commit further offences, as was the case here, then the overall objective seriousness of his criminality is potentially increased: R v Plummer [] NSWCCA at [34] and R v Josef Regina [] NSWCCA The elements of both personal and general deterrence are also important, it being essential that prisoners understand that any offence of escape or attempted escape will result in a meaningful overall increase in their detention: R v Butler [] NSWCCA at [18] and R v Smith [] NSWCCA That this is so is also demonstrated by the fact that the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence has been increased from imprisonment for 7 years to imprisonment for 10 years.

It is also for that reason that the legislature enacted, by way of s 57 2 of the Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act , a requirement for sentences for escape to be served consecutively upon any existing sentence that has yet to expire, or upon any other sentence that is imposed in the same proceedings. R v Pham was complicated in so far as it involved a consideration of s 57 3 , as well as s The respondent escaped during the parole period of an existing sentence and was at large for a considerable period of time.

The court held that there were two distinct purposes apparent from these provisions: the first was to ensure that the offence of escape attracted an actual and meaningful accumulation of sentence; the second was to avoid the existence of a possible hiatus in custody, which would arise if the offender was later released to parole for the existing sentence before the date fixed for commencement of the fresh sentence.

It held that the commencement date of the new sentence was discretionary and governed by s 47 of the Act. The sentence was within the appropriate range but the starting date required adjustment in order to reflect an adequate period of additional punishment.

Section Crimes Administration of Sentences Act supplements the operation of Pt 6A Crimes Act , in that the section allows for sentences to be extended where an offender is unlawfully absent from custody. However, the section does not operate to prevent a person from being proceeded against and convicted of any offence arising out of an escape: s 4.

Sections 2 and 2 Criminal Procedure Act provide that the maximum term of imprisonment that the Local Court may impose for an offence is, subject to the relevant section, 2 years or the maximum term of imprisonment provided by law for the offence, whichever is the shorter term. The former section applies to Table 1 offences and the latter to Table 2 offences.

Section 58 Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act sets numerical limitations on consecutive sentences imposed by the Local Court. Section 58 is a very technical provision and close attention must be given to the language of the section. It provides as follows:. A Local Court may not impose a new sentence of imprisonment to be served consecutively or partly concurrently and partly consecutively with an existing sentence of imprisonment if the date on which the new sentence would end is more than 5 years after the date on which the existing sentence or, if more than one, the first of them began.

Any period for which an existing sentence has been extended under this or any other Act is to be disregarded for the purposes of this section. The language of s 58 is a consequence of the troubled history which plagued its predecessor s Crimes Act Section 58 empowers the Local Court to accumulate sentences up to five years within the prescribed limits outlined above. Section 58 only applies to the imposition of a sentence which is to be served consecutively. As for aggregate sentences: see Aggregate sentences at [ ].

Section 53B permits the Local Court to impose an aggregate sentence of up to five years. It does not alter the jurisdictional limit of two years for individual offences referred to above. A court that quashes or varies a sentence of imprisonment imposed on a person on appeal or otherwise may vary the date of commencement of any other sentence that has been imposed on that person by that or any other court.

A court may vary a sentence under this section on its own initiative or on the application of a party to the proceedings on the quashing or variation of the other sentence. An appeal does not lie merely because the date of commencement of a sentence is varied under this section. The term of a sentence, or the non-parole period of a sentence, cannot be varied under this section.

The provision is designed to remedy a difficulty where the quashing of a sentence following a successful appeal, usually in the District Court or the Court of Criminal Appeal, leaves the appellant with a further sentence of imprisonment to commence on a specified date in the future.

It was regarded as being both impractical and unjust to return a person to custody on a future date. The power in s 59 is not limited to the scenario where the quashing or varying of a sentence will result in a hiatus for a further sentence of imprisonment which commences on a date in the future: Allan v R No 2 at [18]. Totality and existing sentences of imprisonment Offences committed under both state and federal law Separate indictments Totality and overlapping charges [] Sentences for offences involving assault by convicted inmate [] Sentences for offences involving escape by inmate [] Limitation on consecutive sentences imposed by Local Courts Section 58 and aggregate sentences [] Power to vary commencement of sentence [] Application of Division to interstate sentences of imprisonment Last updated: SBB 47, FEB Concurrent and consecutive sentences.

Totality both constrains and sets a lower limit. Totality and public confidence in sentencing.