Weighing Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

Much has been written—and much of it by the Supreme Court—on the proper way to find aggravating factors for sentencing. After Apprendi v. New Jersey, Blakely v. Washington, and countless cases at the state level, it is of course clear that a defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to have aggravating factors proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Once sentencing factors are properly found, however, responsibility shifts back to the judge to decide what to do about them. The rules for weighing factors are as loosey-goosey as the rules for finding them are rigid. Under Structured Sentencing, if aggravating factors are present and the court decides they are sufficient to outweigh any mitigating factors that are present, the court may impose a sentence from the aggravated range. Conversely, if mitigating factors are present and are deemed to outweigh any aggravating factors, the court may sentence from the mitigated range. G.S. 15A-1340.16(b). Many, many appellate cases reinforce the rule that weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors is squarely within the sound discretion of the trial judge. It is for the judge to assign whatever weight he or she deems appropriate to any given factor. State v. Monserrate, 125 N.C. App. 22 (1997). A trial court’s weighing of factors “will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing that there was an abuse of discretion.” State v. Garnett, 209 N.C. App. 537 (2011). A recurrent theme in the cases on weighing aggravating and mitigating factors is that the process is not a mathematical balance. One factor in aggravation [...]