Consecutive sentencing; People v Norfleet; People v Norfleet (After Remand); People v Baskerville; MCL 750.110a(8) (authorizing consecutive sentences for first-degree home invasion)

Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences for defendant’s first-degree home invasion and armed robbery, the court affirmed his sentences. He was originally sentenced as a third-offense habitual offender to consecutive terms of 40 to 60 years for armed robbery and 20 to 40 years for first-degree home invasion. In his first appeal, the court affirmed his “convictions but remanded for resentencing, in part because the trial court failed to articulate a reason for” his consecutive sentences. The trial court on remand resentenced him within the applicable guidelines range to 427 months to 70 years for armed robbery and 17.5 to 40 years for first-degree home invasion. In a second appeal, the court “remanded for resentencing to correct the scoring of several” OVs. The trial court again resentenced him within the applicable guidelines range to consecutive terms of 85 months to 400 months for armed robbery and to 85 months to 300 months for first-degree home invasion. In this third appeal, he challenged the imposition of consecutive sentences. The court concluded the “trial court properly exercised its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences under MCL 750.110a(8), and as required by Norfleet, . . . did not speak in general terms, provided particularized reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence, and referenced defendant and the specific crimes of which he was convicted. Further, it was reasonable for the trial court to conclude that consecutive sentences were justified because defendant took advantage of the elderly victim—who was kind to him and gave him opportunities to work—by invading his home and committing armed robbery.” As to defendant’s argument the trial court was not allowed “to consider facts already captured by the” guidelines, the court noted it held in Norfleet (After Remand) that trial courts “may rely on conduct accounted for in the” guidelines in articulating why it imposed a consecutive sentence. Further, the trial court stated “it was not considering the fact that the victim was a ‘vulnerable victim,’ which was considered by the guidelines, but instead was considering the unique relationship of trust between the victim and defendant that defendant exploited.”