Consecutive sentencing; People v Ryan; MCL 750.520b(3); Adequate justification; People v Norfleet (Norfleet I & II)

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a consecutive sentence for one of defendant’s eight CSC I convictions. He was originally sentenced to 10 to 20 years for each conviction, with the sentences for 3 convictions to run consecutive to those for 3 of the others. The court previously remanded for “the trial court to provide a sufficient justification for imposing consecutive sentencing, or for resentencing.” Defendant argued in this appeal that the trial court on remand failed to give an adequate justification for imposing the consecutive sentence. But the court found that the trial court’s conclusion the “guidelines did not adequately take into account the number of convictions defendant received was not outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes. Eight crimes against a person are significantly more than three crimes against a person, and eight concurrent convictions are significantly more than two concurrent convictions. None of the variables specifically took into account all eight counts at once.” In addition, the trial court explained that “the circumstances of defendant’s convictions, as well as the wide-reaching effect of his actions, were not adequately reflected in the” guidelines. Defendant was correct “that OV 10 was assessed at 15 points (the maximum possible points) for all the counts because the trial court concluded that [he] engaged in ‘predatory conduct[.]’ However, the trial court’s conclusion that OV 10 (and the scoring guidelines as a whole) did not adequately take into account the extent of [his] predatory conduct, the aggravating circumstances surrounding the convictions, and the wide-reaching effect of [his] actions, was not outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes. The trial court listed several specific” surrounding circumstances that could merit a consecutive sentence – the CSC took place “over a period of two to three months;” the victim (AM) was only 15 years old when it occurred; “AM’s mother was pregnant with defendant’s child at the time of the conduct; and his actions broke up a family. These circumstances go beyond predatory conduct, showing a pattern of behavior and aggravating circumstances.” The court found that the “trial court’s reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence” were at least as specific as those given by the trial court in Norfleet II.