Sentencing; Reasonableness; Revocation of youthful trainee under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act (HYTA); MCL 762.12; Probation violation sentencing; MCR 6.445(G); MCL 771.4(5); Proportionality; Michigan Department of Corrections’ (MDOC) sentence recommendation

The court concluded that defendant did “not overcome the presumption that her within-guidelines sentence is proportionate and therefore reasonable.” It noted that the trial court revoked the order of HYTA probation and sentenced her for counts of unarmed robbery to which she had pled guilty, to concurrent terms of 5 to 15 years. She argued it “abused its discretion in considering the sentencing guidelines for armed robbery because that charge was dismissed as part of defendant’s plea agreement.” She also asserted “that the trial court should have taken the [MDOC] sentence recommendation into account.” These arguments lacked merit. As to reasonableness, it was “clear that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in stating the minimum sentencing guidelines range for armed robbery when sentencing defendant.” The court found that it was “an overstatement to say that the trial court based its sentencing decision on the sentencing guidelines for the dismissed charge of armed robbery. [It] merely stated that the MDOC recommendation of no jail time was a substantial deviation from the sentencing guidelines range for unarmed robbery, especially considering defendant was originally charged with armed robbery, which carried an even higher sentencing range.” Further, the record clearly showed “that the trial court considered the recommendation, but ultimately rejected it.” She also argued “that her sentence at the high end of the minimum sentencing guidelines was disproportionate because the trial court did not tailor the sentence to [her] and the circumstances of the case.” She contended it “did not consider the fact that it was her co-defendant who possessed the knife.” These arguments were also without merit. The court held that the record showed her “sentence was reasonably tailored to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding defendant and the crime.” It concluded that the “trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant within the minimum sentencing guidelines for the charges to which she pleaded guilty.” Affirmed.