Consecutive sentencing; People v Snow

Finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a consecutive sentence, the court affirmed. Defendant was convicted of assaulting a prison employee, as a fourth-offense habitual offender. He was sentenced to 36 months to 5 years “to be served consecutively to his sentences for charges arising from an unrelated case.” Defendant argued that the trial court “failed to provide particularized reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence for his” conviction. The record demonstrated “that the trial court’s rationale for imposing a consecutive sentence was focused on facts specific to defendant, including the circumstances of the instant offense and defendant’s extensive and violent criminal history.” It also expressly considered the factors outlined in Snow when fashioning his sentence.