Sentencing; Proportionality of a sentence at the top of the guidelines range; People v Milbourn; People v Posey; People v Dixon-Bey

Rejecting defendant’s claim the trial court imposed a disproportionately harsh sentence by sentencing him at the top of his guidelines range, the court affirmed. He was convicted of reckless driving causing death and failure to stop at the scene of an accident resulting in serious impairment or death for a hit-and-run accident that killed a pedestrian. He was resentenced after a prior remand to 84 months to 15 years for reckless driving causing death and 1 to 5 years for failure to stop at the scene, to be served concurrently. At resentencing, the “parties agreed the guidelines range for the sentencing offense (reckless driving causing death) was 43 to 86 months.” The court concluded that because “the trial court did not list anything akin to the refusal to admit guilt as a factor in its proportionality analysis at resentencing, [its] simple indication it considered a lack of remorse in sentencing does not render the sentence unreasonable.” The court determined that the “trial court’s mention of defendant’s criminal record and disregard for life do not indicate impermissible double consideration of factors already encompassed in the guidelines. The guidelines include a mandate for sentencing courts to exercise their discretion to determine ‘where, on the continuum from the least to the most serious situations, an individual case falls and by sentencing the offender in accordance with this determination.’” The trial court cited “defendant’s criminal history and disregard for life as strong factors, which it gave weight to in placing [him] and his offense on the continuum presented by the guidelines range. [It] also made clear it considered the facts of the offense ‘heinous’ and ‘awful,’ a ‘factor[] not considered by the guidelines,’ which merited consideration.” The court found that “the trial court imposed a sentence ‘proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender,’ as required by the principle of proportionality, and within its discretion.” The court also noted the lack of any “authority suggesting that the trial court needs to consider factors not anticipated by the sentencing guidelines to justify a sentence that falls within the guidelines range.” It found that defendant failed to “overcome the presumption of proportionality produced by the trial court’s adherence to the guidelines.”