Sentences of 4 years for burglary and 3 years for theft (concurrent) were upheld as not manifestly excessive for planned, brazen offending by recidivist offenders with significant prior criminal histories who were subject to community correction orders at the time of offending. The case illustrates that while comparable cases may suggest a range, the sentencing judge is entitled to impose sentences above that range where the offender's criminal history and the need for deterrence warrant it. Evidence of subsequent conduct (returning to the scene) may be used to characterise the state of mind at the time of the original offending without constituting impermissible double counting.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.