Sentencing; Imposition of a departure sentence; People v Lockridge; People v Dixon-Bey; People v Steanhouse

Concluding the trial court failed to sufficiently justify its departure from the guidelines in sentencing defendant, the court remanded either for resentencing or for the trial court to further articulate its justification for its sentencing decision. Defendant pled guilty to CSC II and was sentenced as a third-offense habitual offender to “365 days in jail, followed by 60 months of probation. After [he] violated the terms of his probation, the trial court revoked [his] probation and resentenced” him to 15 to 30 years, a 12-year upward departure from his guidelines range. The court found that it “identified several appropriate factors for the departure sentence.” It referred to his history of committing CSC offenses, and “opined that defendant did not take advantage of or benefit from previous programming.” The court noted that a “defendant’s extensive criminal history and likelihood to reoffend are appropriate considerations supporting a departure sentence.” The trial court also considered his probation violations, and found that he “needed more punishment and more help. Our Supreme Court has determined that ‘a defendant’s conduct while on probation’ may constitute an appropriate justification for departing from the applicable guidelines range.” But the trial court further “identified several additional factors that are contemplated by the sentencing guidelines, but . . . did not explain why the guidelines did not adequately account for” them. In addition, it failed to score OV 11, if it was “applicable, but instead imposed a departure sentence on the basis that defendant had sexually abused the victim by penile-vaginal penetration on several occasions.” The court added that the trial court’s stated justification did “not explain why OV 11 would not adequately account for the criminal sexual penetration, or penetrations, that occurred.” And it failed to address why OVs 4 and 10 “did not account for the victim’s psychological injury and defendant’s exploitation of [her] mental disabilities.” The court determined remand was required “for the trial court either to resentence defendant or to articulate appropriate reasons supporting imposition of a sentence that exceeded the top end of the guidelines range by 12 years, and to address the proportionality of the extent of the particular departure sentence imposed.” It retained jurisdiction.