"The purpose of the second sentencing step is to allow the court to appropriately individualize each sentence." State v. Gray, 2006 ME 29, ¶ 13, 893 A.2d 611, 616 (quotation marks omitted). We review the sentencing court's consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors for an abuse of discretion.

Sentencing courts may "refer to the same facts in the various steps of the sentencing analysis so long as the court is weighing different considerations at each step." State v. Gray, 2006 ME 29, ¶ 13, 893 A.2d 611 (emphasis added and quotation marks omitted).

In determining the basic term the court is not to consider the subjective impact of the crime on the victim but it may take into account objective factors. State v. Gray, 2006 ME 29, ¶ 13, 893 A.2d 611, 616; State v. Pfeil, 1998 ME 245, ¶¶ 16-17, 720 A.2d 573, 577-78. The objective factors include the age or other characteristics of the victim, pursuant to section 1151(8), and the nature of the injuries inflicted, see Pfeil, ¶¶ 16-17, 720 A.2d at 577-78.

[¶14] Importantly, the same fact can generate multiple factors . A sentencing court may consider the same facts at steps one and two of its sentencing analysis, provided that it does so for different purposes. SeeState v. Lord , 2019 ME 82, ¶ 32, 208 A.3d 781 ("[B]ecause the facts surrounding a conviction for murder do not sort neatly into separately identifiable characteristics, there will inevitably be times when an ‘aggravating’ ... circumstance will be considered in both the imposition of a life sentence in step one of a murder sentencing analysis and as an aggravating factor that must be addressed in step two."); State v. Gray , 2006 ME 29, ¶ 13, 893 A.2d 611 (the sentencing court may "refer to the same facts in the various steps of the sentencing analysis so long as the court is weighing different considerations at each step" (quotation marks omitted)). [¶15] Applying these principles to the matter before us, the sentencing court did not double count.