Dist.Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 84-month term of incarceration on charge of making harassing/threatening telephone calls that were obscene in nature, and, at times, pertained to false statements in which defendant told receiver that he was sodomizing child or he had recently done so. Applicable sentencing guideline range was 24 to 30 months incarceration, and plea agreement allowed parties to argue for any sentence between 60 and 120 months incarceration. While defendant argued that Dist. Ct. based sentence on inaccurate information, where Dist. Ct. was told that defendant had 41 (instead of 31) prior convictions for making threatening/harassing telephone calls, defendant's counsel failed to make proper objection to any such misstatement, and thus plain error standard applied. Moreover, no reversible error occurred, where Dist Ct. did not rely on instant misstatement regarding number of prior convictions for improper telephone use in its sentencing rationale. Also, Dist Ct. gave adequate explanation for instant upward variance in defendant's sentence, where: (1) Dist. Ct. focused on aggravating nature of defendant's crimes and their impact on his victims, as well as repeated nature of defendant's threatening calls over 20-year period; and (2) parties had stipulated to sentencing range that was outside applicable guideline range.
