Sentencing; Upward departure sentence; Reasonableness & proportionality; People v Dixon-Bey

The court held that because the sentence in this case was proportionate to the offense and offender, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a 38-month minimum prison sentence. Defendant was convicted of AWIGBH and felony-firearm, arising out of a shooting incident at the home of his former girlfriend. The trial court departed upward from the guidelines and sentenced defendant to 38 months to 10 years for the AWIGBH conviction. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a disproportionate sentence that fell outside the applicable guidelines range, noting it was “not persuaded that the challenged departure sentence [was] disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense of which defendant was convicted and” his background. “In departing by 15 months from the minimum sentencing guidelines range, the court considered rehabilitation, deterrence, and punishment.” In terms of rehabilitation, it told defendant he needed to learn the appropriate circumstances to use a firearm, and recognized that even if it accepted his suggestion that the victim had “bullied” him, he “did not just point the firearm at the victim; [he] fired multiple shots at the victim at close range, which could have taken the victim’s life.” The trial court “took into consideration that it not only had to teach defendant that he cannot act in this manner in the future, but it also had to teach other individuals that they cannot act like defendant did in this incident.” In addition, it “considered whether the guidelines minimum sentence range reflected the severity of the crime, and agreed with the prosecution ‘that the guidelines don’t do it justice.’” It believed the “severity of the offense, particularly the fact that defendant shot at the victim nine times, justified the court’s upward departure from 23 months to 38 months for the minimum sentence.” Defendant failed to show “any basis for concluding that the principle of proportionality was violated.” Affirmed.