Sentence departure; Punitive sentencing; Reasonableness & proportionality

Finding that “the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a departure sentence, and” defendant was not entitled to resentencing, the court affirmed. He was convicted of conspiracy to use false pretenses to obtain $100,000 or more (conspiracy) and using false pretenses to obtain $100,000 or more (false pretenses). He was sentenced to 7 concurrent terms of 100 months to 20 years, and ordered to pay $3,664,352.54 in restitution. He argued that his sentence “was imposed to penalize him for rejecting a plea offer and exercising his constitutional right to a jury trial[.]” The record did not support his “claim that the trial court punished him for rejecting the plea offer, which was made more than two years prior. To the contrary, the trial court indicated that it had presided over defendant’s trial, which introduced the trial court to more information than was available at the time the plea offer was made. The trial court also noted that the victim’s impact statement, which was unavailable at the time of the plea offer, was of ‘great magnitude’ to the court when fashioning defendant’s sentence.” When determining a “fair sentence, the trial court emphasized the large size of the fraud and defendant’s repeated criminal behavior and betrayal of his former company for over a decade. Because the record belies defendant’s claim that the trial court imposed a more severe sentence to punish him for exercising his right to a jury trial, defendant is not entitled to relief on these grounds.” In sum, the court concluded that the record (1) supported “the trial court’s rationale for imposing a departure sentence,” and (2) demonstrated “that the court thoroughly considered the seriousness of defendant’s crimes, the offender, and the applicable guidelines range when fashioning” his sentence.