Sentencing; Upward departure; People v. Steanhouse; Reasonableness of a departure sentence; People v. Lockridge; Proportionality; People v. Milbourn; People v. Stokes; United States v. Crosby (2d Cir.)

In consideration of the court’s recent ruling in Steanhouse, it remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing to follow the Crosby procedure outlined in Lockridge. Defendant appealed his sentence following his guilty pleas to felon in possession and felony-firearm (the prosecution dropped a charge of possession of child sexually abusive material). The trial court sentenced him as a fourth-offense habitual offender. It departed upward, sentencing him to serve 12 to 25 years’ imprisonment for his felon in possession conviction, and a consecutive term of 2 years’ imprisonment for his felony-firearm conviction. The court, in Steanhouse, considered the impact of Lockridge on departure sentences. Steanhouse holds that pursuant to Lockridge, the court “must review a defendant’s sentence for reasonableness.” However, as stated in Steanhouse, the "appropriate procedure for considering the reasonableness of a departure sentence is not set forth in Lockridge.” The court adopted the standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Milbourn. Under Steanhouse, “factors previously considered by Michigan courts under the proportionality standard included, among others, (1) the seriousness of the offense, (2) factors not considered by the guidelines . . . (3) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines in a particular case.” Here, the trial court did not have the benefit of Lockridge or Steanhouse. Because of this, “the trial court’s sentence departure centered on the then existing substantial and compelling reason standard which was overturned by Lockridge.” Thus, in accordance with Steanhouse, the court remanded for a Crosby hearing.