Sentencing; Reasonableness & proportionality; People v Milbourn; Downward departure; Considering a defendant’s age, work history, & lack of criminal history; People v Davis

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in departing downward from the guidelines in sentencing defendant. The victim, a wealthy, middle-aged married man, and defendant, a substantially younger single woman, had been involved in an affair for years. She was convicted of AWIGBH, malicious destruction of personal property valued at less than $200, domestic violence, malicious destruction of a building between $200 and $1,000, felonious assault, and resisting or obstructing a police officer. The trial court opined that the guidelines’ recommendation was “quite high” for the AWIGBH conviction. It also noted that this “was not this the typical domestic-violence situation it encountered . . . .” After reviewing her OV scores, it noted that removing the effect of her resisting and obstructing offense, which it viewed as de minimus, the guidelines recommendation would be 5 to 23 months. It determined that this “was ‘far more reasonable . . . given the conduct in question.’” As such, it imposed an out-of-guidelines sentence of 2 years’ probation, with the first 5 months to be served in county jail, for the AWIGBH conviction. The prosecution appealed. “[T]here is no doubt that defendant assaulted and seriously injured the victim; she also destroyed the victim’s and his wife’s property. If this case involved only those facts, then the outcome might have been different. But there are mitigating circumstances.” It noted that this occurred “years into her relationship with the victim. And, although voluntary intoxication is not a defense for any of [her] actions, excessive alcohol use appears to have significantly diminished her self-control.” In addition, “on this particular weekend, [her] behaviors crossed the line after discovery of the item that led her to confront the victim. The victim himself recognized that defendant was ‘out of control’ and the victim’s wife reported that defendant was ‘incoherent’ during that weekend.” The victim indicated that he did not want her to go to prison. Shortly after these incidents, defendant “engaged in services with a therapist and psychiatrist. After many months of treatment, [her] therapist opined that defendant was stable, no longer drinking, and was not ‘a threat to anyone.’” Finally, the conduct underlying her “resisting or obstructing conviction was de minimis, but greatly impacted both the PRV and OV Levels.” Until 2019, defendant “essentially led a crime-free life and was employed.” Affirmed.