Sentencing; Proportionality; People v Steanhouse; Effect of the trial court explaining it would have imposed the same sentence; People v Mutchie

Concluding that defendant’s sentence was proportionate, and noting the trial court made it clear that it would have sentenced him as it did even if the guidelines had initially been correctly scored, the court rejected his claim that he was entitled to resentencing. He was convicted of second-degree home invasion and sentenced as a third-offense habitual offender to 30 to 360 months. The trial court originally scored 10 points for OV 9, but it was undisputed it should have been scored at 0 points. He moved for resentencing. The trial court made the correction, ordering OV 9 rescored at 0 points. Defendant’s original guidelines minimum range was 29 to 85 months; correcting the scoring error lowered it to 19 to 57 months. But the trial court denied his motion for resentencing as unnecessary, stating that, if it resentenced him, it would “impose an identical 30-month minimum sentence, notwithstanding the recalculation of” his minimum guidelines range. On appeal, he speculated “that his original sentence was intended to be at the bottom of his original guidelines range, so he is entitled to a new sentence at the bottom of his revised guidelines range. This argument places undue weight on the guidelines.” The court noted that while they are a very relevant consideration, proportionality is the proper analysis. At the motion hearing, “the trial court appropriately and unequivocally stated its familiarity with the case, and it explained that a 30-month minimum sentence is what it would have imposed originally even if defendant’s sentencing guidelines had been properly scored. A trial court’s sentencing decision will be upheld despite any underlying errors in scoring the guidelines if it is clear that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence irrespective of the errors and that sentence is otherwise not improper.” Affirmed.