Didn't HN recently conclude that calculating the 'maximum sentence' as the sum of sentences of the individual convictions is journalistic malpractice? Do better, NYT (they won't).
Given that there were 7 charges and assuming all charges can be served in parallel that's a minimum sentence of ~15 years (why is left as an exercise to the reader).
Looks like your logic is 110/7 = ~15, therefore there must be at least one charge with a maximum sentence of at least ~15 years. But why does that imply a minimum sentence of ~15 years? He could get less than the maximum sentence for some or all of the charges.
In terms of what's likely, from a quick search it looks like the maximums are 20 years for some of the charges and 5 for the others, and 10-20 years is a realistic guess for his actual prison time.