Sentencing; Reasonableness & proportionality; Scoring of OV 4; Remorse

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a sentence outside of the guidelines recommendation that was proportionate to the seriousness of the crime and the circumstances surrounding it. Defendant was convicted of CSC II for sexually assaulting his girlfriend’s five-year-old daughter. The trial court sentenced him as a third-habitual offender to 12 to 30 years. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to a minimum term that exceeded the guidelines recommendation of 36 to 106 months. “Although the trial court’s decision to exceed the guidelines primarily rested on the harm suffered by the victim, the court also considered the danger that defendant posed to society. Defendant’s lengthy criminal background indicated to the” trial court that he was a risk to the public. “Defendant’s extensive criminal history demonstrated a clear inability to conform his behavior to the requirements of law and suggested an unnatural sexual appetite that continued despite the lengthy gap between defendant’s first and most recent sexual offense involving a child.” In addition, contrary to defendant’s argument, “the OVs failed to fully account for the victim’s and her mother’s psychological harm.” The trial court assessed 10 points under OV 4 “and adequately explained why OV 4 failed to fully account for the lifetime harm defendant’s actions inflicted upon the victim.” Further, although defendant “expressed remorse at sentencing, the victim’s mother also told the [trial] court that, when she caught defendant in the act, he tried to blame the victim for what happened, even as he apologized.” Finally, along with the other “valid reasons outlined by the sentencing court, we conclude that it would have imposed the identical out-of-guidelines sentence without consideration of any improper factors. This was a small departure considering the gravity of defendant’s crime and his criminal history.” Affirmed.