Sentencing; Whether the correct guidelines range was used; The law of the case doctrine; Proportionality challenge to a within-guidelines sentence; Cruel & unusual punishment; Effect of a defendant’s age; Scope of a Crosby remand; People v Lockridge; Judge-found facts claim; Separation of powers & the modification of the guidelines under MCL 8.5; Alleged ex post facto violations; Restitution; The Crime Victim’s Rights Act (CVRA); MCL 780.766(2) & (3); “Victim” (MCL 780.766(1)); Restitution to a deceased victim’s estate; MCL 780.766(7); Requesting an amended order of restitution; MCL 780.766(8) & (22); Whether the CVRA is void for vagueness; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Driving while license suspended (DWLS)

Noting that the scoring of defendant’s OVs and the circumstances of his crimes were the law of the case, the court rejected his claim that the trial court used an incorrect guidelines range. Further, his within-guidelines sentence was proportionate, and he did not overcome the presumption that it was not cruel or unusual. His argument that his minimum sentence was unconstitutionally supported by judge-found facts failed given that “his sentence after the Crosby remand was based on now-advisory” guidelines. There was also no ex post facto violation. Further, the trial court did not err by ordering him to pay restitution to the family of the deputy (W) killed as a result of defendant’s first-degree fleeing and eluding, and the replacement value of the police vehicle. He was also convicted of DWLS. In these consolidated appeals, he appealed the trial court’s order denying his motion for resentencing following a Crosby remand and its order requiring him to pay restitution to the sheriff’s department and W’s family. The court noted that in his prior appeal, it had ruled that OVs 3, 5, 9, 17, 18, and 19 were correctly scored, and that the evidence supported his identity as the driver of the vehicle eluding the police. Those “previous decisions are the law of the case.” As to his proportionality argument, his “recommended minimum sentence was 84 to 280 months.” He was sentenced to a minimum of 240 months. Because he “was sentenced within his guidelines range and there were no factual or scoring errors, his sentence is presumptively proportionate.” As to his contention that it constituted “cruel or unusual punishment because it is effectively a life sentence” due to his age, age by itself is not a ground to overcome the presumption a within-guidelines sentence is not cruel or unusual, “particularly when defendant has a lengthy criminal record and his crime caused the death of another person.” The court also rejected his claim “that the trial court erred by ordering him to pay restitution when he did not proximately cause [W’s] death and the destruction of his” patrol vehicle, noting that the jury necessarily found that his “conduct was both the factual and proximate cause of [W’s] death when it found him guilty of fleeing and eluding causing death.” Affirmed but remanded for amendment of the restitution award to reduce it for costs not supported by the testimony.