The analysis focused on 250 cases from each court. Results revealed that routinization occurs in the sentencing behavior within each county; this routinization appears to be sentencing disparity when the county context is not isolated. Because the routinization of sentencing behavior is not a singular part of the courtroom process, the routinization of arrest charge, bail, arraignment charge, and conviction charge decisions were also analyzed for each county. The analysis of the patterns of routinization in each court was used to recommend the elements necessary in the proper measurement of sentencing disparity. Tables, notes, case citation, and 36 references (Author abstract modified)