A sentencing judge is not required to give reasons for not setting parole eligibility at one-third of the head sentence, but must give proper weight to all mitigating features including admissions that establish a greater quantum of offending than could otherwise be proven. Failure to do so constitutes an error requiring re-exercise of the sentencing discretion. For large-scale boiler-room fraud involving approximately $5.6 million and 311 victims, a head sentence of 10 years imprisonment (maximum 12 years) with parole eligibility at one-third is appropriate where the offenders were not the architects of the scheme, pleaded guilty in a timely manner, and made admissions establishing a fraud three times greater than provable.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.