Sentencing; Proportionality; People v Posey; People v Steanhouse
The court held that because “defendant’s sentence fell within the recommended guidelines and the presumption of proportionality was not overcome, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.” He was convicted of CSC III and sentenced to 5 to 15 years. He argued that his minimum sentence, at the top of the guidelines, was “disproportionate to both the offense and the offender.” The court noted that “the trial court imposed a sentence within the recommended guidelines, and the record reflects [it] considered defendant’s nine prior misdemeanor convictions, the emotional impact on the victim, and the need to protect society. Given these considerations, the sentence was not disproportionate to the offense and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.” Defendant argued that it “abused its discretion by imposing a sentence at the top of the recommended guidelines range without adequately considering mitigating factors. While defendant cites Posey, and acknowledges that a within-guidelines sentence is presumed proportionate, he does not persuasively rebut that presumption.” He emphasized “that he had no prior felony convictions and no history of sexual assaults.” He further asserted “that the trial court failed to properly weigh his personal circumstances and the broader purposes of criminal punishment, such as rehabilitation, deterrence, reformation, protection of society, and punishment.” But the record reflected “that each of these mitigating factors was included in the Presentence Investigation Report, which the trial court reviewed prior to sentencing. The trial court acknowledged the PSIR and the party’s arguments on the record, indicating that it considered the relevant mitigating factors before selecting a sentence within the guidelines. Thus, defendant failed to meet his burden of showing that the sentence was disproportionate under the specific circumstances. Under Steanhouse, a sentence must be reasonable and proportionate to both the offense and the offender. The trial court imposed a sentence that was within the guidelines and provided a clear, individualized rationale for doing so. Its emphasis on defendant’s repeated criminal behavior, lack of remorse, and the emotional harm suffered by the victim reflects appropriate sentencing considerations. [Its] comment that defendant ‘needed to be taken off the street’ was grounded in legitimate public safety concerns and supported by the record, and was not indicative of personal bias or vindictiveness.” Affirmed.
Full PDF Opinion