Understanding Sentencing: A Criminal Defense Lawyer’s Guide

Sentencing is the part of a criminal case that can feel both technical and deeply personal. The statutes read like a spreadsheet. The courtroom feels like a living room with a judge, a prosecutor, and your future sitting in folding chairs. If you are the one waiting to be sentenced, time slows down in a way physicists have yet to fully capture. If you are the criminal defense lawyer standing beside the client, your job is to translate a labyrinth into a path. That path is rarely straight. It bends around guidelines, aggravators, mitigation, the judge’s history, the prosecutor’s politics, and the story of a life shown in snapshots rather than a full album.

I have watched hardened defendants tremble at a fine and first-time defendants face prison with a steady jaw. People react differently because sentencing is not some tidy algorithm. It is a judgment, a negotiation, a narrative, and a small referendum on what we want punishment to do: prevent, deter, repair, rehabilitate, or simply satisfy the feeling that a wrong must be answered. Good lawyering can’t turn a robbery into a misunderstanding, but it can turn twenty years into ten, ten into probation, or at times, prison into treatment. The hinge is preparation and persuasion.
What sentencing really decides
A sentence is not just “how long.” It decides where you will be, who supervises you, what you must pay, and what constraints will follow you long after the case number disappears from the docket. Judges typically choose among prison or jail, probation or community control, fines and surcharges, treatment programs, community service, and a sprawling list of conditions. Often they stack these pieces, and the stacking is where outcomes shift from survivable to crushing.

Consider a mid-level theft. One prosecutor wants six months in county jail and restitution. Another, in the same courthouse, will accept probation with 180 days suspended, a theft awareness class, and a job requirement. Your facts didn’t change. The framing did. Your lawyer’s credibility did. The judge’s comfort with the plan did. In tight cases, the difference between custody and supervision can be a clean, concrete plan that addresses risk and puts the judge at ease.
The scaffolding: statutes, guidelines, and discretion
Every state has its own architecture, and the federal system has its own book. In many places you have three pillars: statutory ranges, guidelines or grids that suggest a number, and judicial discretion shaped by case law and local practice. Statutes set the playing field. A second-degree felony might authorize two to twenty years, while a misdemeanor carries up to a year. Guidelines attempt consistency by assigning points for the severity of the offense and the person’s criminal history. Discretion is the space between what is allowed and what is chosen.

I once handled a drug case where the guideline range came out to 46 to 57 months. The judge ultimately imposed 24 months, not because the math was wrong, but because the story was incomplete until we told it. We showed long-term sobriety before arrest, relapse after a family death, and months of verified treatment after. The government argued for the midpoint. The judge acknowledged the guidelines, then chose a sentence that still respected the law but recognized change already in progress. That is discretion in the wild.

Federal sentencing has its own culture. The United States Sentencing Guidelines are technically advisory, not mandatory, since the Supreme Court decided they violated the Sixth Amendment in their hard form. Still, they matter. Most judges start with the guidelines, then work through the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors: nature of the offense, history and characteristics of the defendant, deterrence, protection of the public, and the need for rehabilitation. In practice those factors are a script, and good defense submissions speak that language without sounding like a brochure.
The pre-sentence investigation report: friend, foe, or both
In many jurisdictions, the pre-sentence investigation report, or PSI, is the quiet heavyweight in the room. A probation officer interviews the defendant, reviews discovery and records, then writes a report with background facts, criminal history, victim statements, risk assessments, and a recommendation. Some judges trust their probation departments like pilots trust air traffic controllers. Others read the PSI, then test it against the advocates’ submissions.

I treat the PSI like a draft contract. It is much easier to shape it before it is finalized than to litigate corrections on sentencing day. If the probation officer is open to materials, I send documented employment history, school records, treatment verification, character letters, and proof of restitution or community service already completed. The tone matters. No one appreciates a packet of loosely sourced claims dressed up as truth. Send precise, verifiable pieces. If the report gets a fact wrong, the best correction is a short letter with records attached, not a 20-page lecture.

Clients often ask if they should “tell their story” in the PSI interview. Usually yes, but with counsel’s guidance. Honesty is mandatory. Detail and wording require care. I prepare clients with practice questions, not to script answers, but to avoid landmines. I have seen a single offhand phrase, like “I guess I didn’t think it was a big deal,” blow up months of work. Equally, a thoughtful admission, coupled with a concrete description of change, can move a judge more than any lawyerly flourish.
Aggravation and mitigation: two ledgers, one decision
Sentencing often feels like a balance sheet. The prosecution highlights aggravating factors: harm to victims, planning or sophistication, use of weapons, leadership role, prior violations, the need for general deterrence, and community impact. The defense offers mitigation: lack of prior record, youth or immaturity at the time of the offense, role as a minimal participant, mental health or addiction treatment, restitution efforts, strong family support, military service, remorse backed by action, and a realistic plan for stability.

I once represented a young man in a burglary spree. The aggravators lined up like a parade: multiple homes, nighttime entries, financial loss. We confronted those head-on. We brought in the mother of a co-defendant who described the peer dynamics that put him in the car, then pivoted to the mitigation we could prove: eighteen months of clean drug tests, a GED earned while on bond, and documented full restitution made by selling his prized motorcycle. The judge still imposed jail time, but it was measured in weeks, not years. We didn’t erase the harm. We showed a trajectory that made a lighter sentence defensible.

Mitigation is not a sympathy play. Judges see plenty of regret. They respond to responsibility and structure. “I’m sorry” matters only when paired with receipts: completed classes, written apology letters sent through counsel, money saved toward restitution, a standing job offer, and a treatment plan with dates and names. The key is to turn a narrative into a plan a judge can adopt without fear of looking naïve.
Plea agreements and their gravitational pull
By the time you reach sentencing, much of the outcome has been shaped already by the plea. The charge you plea to determines the range and the collateral consequences. The written agreement may include an agreed recommendation, caps or floors on jail time, or provisions that allow both sides to argue freely. Even a “non-binding recommendation” carries weight in court, especially if the prosecutor stays consistent and the victim is either supportive or neutral.

Negotiating a plea is as much about timing as content. If a co-defendant is about to cooperate, leverage changes. If the lab results are delayed, patience may pay off. If a judge is about to rotate off the criminal calendar, that can matter too. Clients sometimes want to rush a deal because the stress is unbearable. A criminal defense lawyer has to slow the clock when delay benefits the case and speed it up when waiting hurts. The right plea tees up a range where good mitigation can do its best work.
The human factor: judges are people with habits
You can learn a lot by watching a judge for a week. Some judges like to lecture, then exercise mercy. Some say little, then impose the stiff end of the range. Patterns emerge. One judge I appear before often gives the bottom of the range if the defendant completed specific community service hours with a designated nonprofit. Another will not budge without direct restitution, even if the amount seems symbolic. A third places huge stock in letters from employers that say, simply, “We know the facts and will keep him on the schedule.”

Knowing those habits is not cynicism. It is part of advocacy. If you know a judge prioritizes victim input, you make sure your client’s apology is transmitted through the victim services office early, not sprung at the hearing. If you know a judge detests boilerplate letters, you ask for fewer, better letters with details instead of adjectives. The same mitigation materials do not work equally well in every courtroom.
What to say at sentencing, and what to leave unsaid
Clients often ask, “Should I speak?” My default is yes, but briefly and honestly. The most effective statements usually share three parts: acknowledgment of harm, responsibility, and a concrete step already taken. One man I represented for a DUI resulting in injury stood up and said, “I drove drunk, and I hurt someone. I completed treatment, and the car keys in my pocket belong to my wife now. She drives. That is our rule.” It took 20 seconds. It landed.

Lengthy speeches about hardship can backfire, especially if they seem to compete with a victim’s pain. Equally unwise is reading a stale script. Judges recognize authenticity. If English is not comfortable, speak in the language you know best and use an interpreter. For some clients, a letter is better than live remarks. If anxiety will produce a ramble, I ask the client to write a note and read it, verbatim. Simplicity beats theatrics.
Special issues: addiction, mental health, and veterans
Some categories of cases bring specialized tools. Drug and mental health courts have grown across the country, and they come with a deal of sorts: intensive treatment and supervision in lieu of or in reduction of jail time. They are not soft options. Participants appear frequently in court, submit to randomized testing, and work through stages. I have seen them change lives. I have also seen people fail when they entered for the sake of a lighter sentence rather than readiness for treatment.

For clients with documented conditions, the defense goal is to tie the condition to the offense without excusing the harm. Provide diagnoses from credible clinicians, treatment records that show continuity, and a plan for continued care that does not depend on hope. The middle ground is accountability paired with treatment that actually addresses risk. Some judges will accept a shorter jail term coupled with a long tail of treatment and monitoring because it protects the community better than raw incarceration.

Veterans’ courts and diversion programs recognize trauma and service. Results vary by jurisdiction. Where available, a well-documented service record, VA treatment connections, and support from a mentor can reframe a sentence as a structured pathway. The wrong way to approach these programs is to treat them as magic words. The right way is to present them as part of a durable plan with accountability.
Money matters: fines, fees, and restitution
Sentences often include a financial piece that clients underestimate. Statutory fines can be significant, but the stealth costs are fees: court costs, probation fees, mandatory assessments, and surcharges that add up fast. Restitution is its own category. Courts generally can order restitution for direct losses. Interest can accrue. Payment plans exist, but default invites violation proceedings.

If a client has cash on hand, I advise starting restitution payments before sentencing, even if only a partial amount. It changes the conversation with victims and the court. A promise to pay feels different when paired with a receipt. For clients living paycheck to paycheck, we build a budget, collect pay stubs, and propose a realistic schedule. Judges prefer honest numbers to bravado that collapses in two months.
Probation and supervised release: the long tail
A sentence might include no custody but a long term of probation with conditions. Or, in federal court, supervised release follows a prison term like the tide follows the moon. The conditions matter. They can include work requirements, travel restrictions, curfews, treatment, warrantless searches, and limitations on association. Violating those conditions can mean new custody, sometimes with little due process compared to the original case.

A well-crafted defense plan proposes conditions that fit the risks and avoid traps. If a client travels for work, we ask for clear travel protocols. If a client lives with someone who https://pastelink.net/15uyewzn https://pastelink.net/15uyewzn owns firearms, we address safe storage or, better, relocation. If the client’s job requires internet access, we negotiate monitoring terms that allow employment instead of banning the tool outright. I have seen too many people tripped by mismatched conditions that made compliance nearly impossible.
Collateral consequences: the sentence after the sentence
Punishment bleeds into life beyond the courtroom. Convictions can affect immigration status, professional licenses, housing eligibility, student loans, and gun rights. Some offenses trigger sex offender registration with complex rules and social costs. One client, a nurse, feared the board more than the judge, and with good reason. We coordinated with licensing counsel before the plea to minimize damage. Because we did, we structured a conviction that avoided a mandatory license revocation and paired the sentence with conditions the board recognized as rehabilitative.

If immigration consequences are on the table, the Supreme Court has said the criminal defense lawyer must advise on them. That means consulting an immigration specialist when necessary. The difference between a removable offense and a safer plea can be a single statutory word. You cannot fix this after sentencing.
Victim input and community relations
Victim impact statements carry moral weight. They also carry political weight because prosecutors answer to communities. Ignoring victims is poor strategy and bad manners. Where appropriate, early restitution and sincere apology letters transmitted through proper channels can soften opposition. In some cases, restorative justice conferences exist that allow structured dialogue. They are not suitable for every case or every person, but when they work, the outcomes can be more satisfying to everyone involved than a rote sentence.

I once handled a vandalism case involving a local business that had been tagged repeatedly. We arranged a meeting in a conference room with the owner, a city mediator, and my client. The owner asked for something simple: repaint the wall and spend two Saturdays cleaning graffiti in the neighborhood. The prosecutor, who attended, recommended probation conditioned on those terms and a modest fine. The judge adopted it on the record. No one pretended the act was trivial. But the solution fit the harm.
Timing, preparation, and small optics that matter
Sentencing hearings run on calendars, but they are shaped by optics. Judges notice punctuality. They notice attire that shows respect without pretense. They notice whether the person came with family or stands alone. None of these should decide a sentence, but in a close call they can tilt the margin. I once watched a judge reserve decision until the afternoon because the defendant arrived late with a latte and no explanation. When the sentence came down, the judge chose the top of the range. Was it the latte? Not entirely. Did it help? Not at all.

Preparation is more than printing letters. It is rehearsing the allocution, confirming that childcare is covered so a parent can appear, verifying the bus route, and double-checking the treatment intake date printed in the memo. It is coordinating with the probation officer so the PSI includes updated facts. It is calling the clerk a week before to confirm the hearing time. These small acts are the unglamorous parts of being a criminal defense lawyer, and they move outcomes.
Appeals and sentence modifications: hope with rules
Not every sentence is final in the everyday sense. Many jurisdictions allow motions to reconsider within a short window. Some statutory schemes permit modifications after a period of compliance, such as early termination of probation. Federal law has narrow pathways for compassionate release based on extraordinary and compelling reasons, often medical. Appeals exist, but sentencing appeals are technical and uphill unless the judge committed a legal error or abused discretion in a way the record exposes.

What this means practically: build the record. If you are asking for a variance from guidelines, anchor it in recognized factors and cite cases the judge can lean on. If you object to a guideline enhancement, state the legal basis for the objection clearly, and ensure the court rules on it. If you want credit for rehabilitation down the line, put the details of that plan into the record now.
Common mistakes that sink good cases
Even strong cases can wobble at sentencing because of avoidable errors. Three show up often. First, the defendant minimizes the conduct, contradicting the plea and infuriating the court. Second, the defense promises a grand plan with no named providers, no dates, and no money for co-pays, which signals fantasy. Third, counsel relies on boilerplate memos recycled from old cases that make judges feel ignored rather than persuaded. The fix is simple but not easy: own the facts, present a credible plan, and write like a human being who knows the file.
A quick, practical checklist for defendants heading to sentencing Finish what you can before court: treatment sessions, community service, restitution payments, letters from employers or mentors. Review the PSI with your lawyer early, and correct errors with documentation, not debates. Prepare a short statement that accepts responsibility and describes a concrete step you have taken. Bring proof: certificates, receipts, schedules, and contact information for supervision or treatment providers. Show up early, dressed simply and neatly, with phones silenced and support present if possible. When prison is on the table
Sometimes the facts, the law, and the history point to custody. If so, defense work shifts from avoidance to mitigation within custody. Where will the sentence be served, and can programming be accessed there? In federal cases, designation depends on security level and medical needs, and the Bureau of Prisons gives some weight to judicial recommendations. A well-aimed recommendation can steer a client toward a facility with industry, education, or drug treatment programs that reduce recidivism and may shave time through earned credits. State systems vary, but similar principles apply.

I advise clients to think of custody as a project. Take classes. Work. Avoid debt at commissary. Stay in touch with family in ways that do not invite discipline. On the outside, families should keep records of calls, visits, and costs. When release approaches, collect documentation of programming, work evaluations, and disciplinary-free periods. Those details matter to parole boards, probation officers, and future judges who will one day decide whether to end supervision early.
The defense memo: story, structure, and law
A sentencing memorandum is not a novel. It is also not a spreadsheet. It is both facts and law packaged in a way that respects the court’s time. I try to keep the opening two pages tight: a snapshot of the person, the offense, and the proposed sentence, with why it meets statutory goals. Then I fill in the details with exhibits that prove what I assert. When quoting letters, I choose lines that sound like the writer, not like me. Judges smell ghostwriting from a mile away.

The memo should not dodge the worst facts. Put them on the table, then explain how the proposed sentence addresses them. If there is an ugly prior, show what has changed since then. If the offense involved real harm, acknowledge it clearly. The goal is not to make the judge feel manipulated. The goal is to make the judge feel safe choosing a path that balances accountability and hope.
Final thoughts from the defense table
Sentencing is not a foregone conclusion, even when the statute and guidelines narrow the lanes. Within those lanes, a person’s history, effort, and plan can change the outcome by months or years. The best criminal defense lawyer plays translator and carpenter: translating rules into a clear ask, then building a structure that can hold the weight of a judge’s decision. When the gavel falls, what you have built is either a rickety promise or a solid bridge to a different chapter.

If you are heading toward sentencing, give your lawyer raw material to work with. Do the hard, unglamorous tasks early. Let your actions speak first. Judges notice effort that predates the hearing. So do prosecutors, victims, and probation officers. A sentence should be an honest response to harm and risk. When the defense team does its job, it also becomes an invitation to believe in the next version of the person standing before the court. That belief, carefully earned, is often the difference between a life interrupted and a life derailed.

Law Offices Of Michael Dreishpoon<br>
Address: 118-35 Queens Blvd Ste. 1500, Forest Hills, NY 11375, United States<br>
Phone: +1 718-793-5555

Experienced Criminal Defense & Personal Injury Representation in NYC and Queens

At The Law Offices of Michael Dreishpoon, we provide aggressive legal representation for clients facing serious criminal charges and personal injury matters. Whether you’ve been arrested for domestic violence, drug possession, DWI, or weapons charges—or injured in a car accident, construction site incident, or slip and fall—we fight to protect your rights and pursue the best possible outcome. Serving Queens and the greater NYC area with over 25 years of experience, we’re ready to stand by your side when it matters most.