Sentencing; Reasonable & proportionate upward departure

Holding that defendant was entitled to resentencing because the trial “court failed to expressly explain the extent of the departure and the reasons why it resulted in a more proportionate sentence under the circumstances,” the court vacated and remanded. Following a nolo contendere plea, he was convicted of FIP and OWI, third offense. He was sentenced as a habitual offender, fourth offense, to concurrent terms of 10 to 30 years for each offense. In imposing his sentence, the trial court cited his “lengthy criminal history and incarcerations, the potential seriousness of the present offenses, and defendant’s failed benefits from prior treatment programs. We recognize that the trial court was entitled to determine that defendant’s repetitive commission of the same offenses, including driving while intoxicated and being a [FIP], as well as the danger posed by the nature of the offenses were inadequately reflected in the calculation of the sentencing guidelines range. Indeed, the trial court may determine that these factors were given inadequate weight.” But, after the trial “court examined the four goals of sentencing, it failed to expressly explain the extent of the departure and the reasons why it resulted in a more proportionate sentence under the circumstances.”