Sentencing; Whether the introductory sentence of MCL 769.34(10) is unconstitutional; People v Posey (On Remand); Due process; MCL 777.21(3); Reasonable & proportionate; People v Lampe; Cruel &/or unusual punishment; Operating a motor vehicle with a revoked license causing death (OWRLCD)

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in “enhancing defendant’s maximum sentence and by increasing the upper limit of the minimum guidelines range to 19 years” under MCL 769.12(1)(b) and 777.21(3)(c), based on his status as a fourth-offense habitual offender. Also, he did not meet “his burden of overcoming the nonbinding presumption that the within-guidelines minimum sentence of 19 years was proportional.” Finally, the court rejected his cruel and/or unusual punishment argument. He pled guilty to OWRLCD and was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 19 to 40 years. The court first addressed his claim that the introductory sentence of MCL 769.34(10) is unconstitutional. It began with his arguments based on MCL 777.21(3). He was assessed 75 points for PRV 1 for “3 or more prior high severity felony convictions.” The court concluded that considering “that assessment and the scoring of the remaining PRVs, along with the scoring of the OVs, defendant’s guidelines range, without yet contemplating his prior felony convictions for purposes of MCL 777.21(3), would be 58 to 114 months in prison given that OWLRCD is a Class C offense.” Because he “was a fourth-offense habitual offender, the trial court increased the top end or upper limit of the guidelines range from 114 months to 228 months under MCL 777.21(3)[.]” The court found that assuming “for the sake of argument that the analytical structure or reasoning of defendant’s argument is legally sound, we conclude that there was no abuse of discretion in enhancing [his] sentence.” As reflected by his “extensive criminal history and as recognized by the trial court, the record clearly demonstrates that defendant has an inability to conform his conduct to the laws of society.” The court was “not unsympathetic to [his] horrific childhood, but, as emphasized by the trial court, it cannot repeatedly be used as an excuse for continuing criminal behavior.” Further, while OWRLCD is “a strict liability offense, it is nonetheless a very serious crime—[J] lost her life. It is inescapable that defendant caused [J’s] death because he chose to engage in legally-prohibited conduct—driving a motor vehicle with a revoked license.” There was no indication that J “did anything improper that contributed to her death.” The court next addressed defendant’s claim “that it was fundamentally unfair and thus a violation of due process to weigh [his] three prior felony convictions when scoring the PRVs and calculating the guidelines range, and to then again consider them in relation to the habitual offender-enhancement provision in MCL 777.21(3).” First, he failed to cite adequate supporting authority for his argument. And the argument failed on a substantive level. The court also held that “the 19-year minimum sentence was proportionate to the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender.” Affirmed.