Sentencing; Reasonableness & proportionality; People v Steanhouse; Presumptive proportionality of a within-guidelines sentence; Unusual circumstances

Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing defendant’s within-guidelines sentences, the court affirmed. These consolidated appeals arose from two cases arising from domestic violence incidents. In one case he was convicted of FIP, FIP of ammunition, CCW, assault with a dangerous weapon, domestic violence, and felony-firearm. He was sentenced “as a fourth-offense habitual offender to a within-guidelines sentence of 58-months minimum and 20-years maximum for” his FIP, CCW, and assault with a dangerous weapon. In the other case he was convicted of malicious destruction of property over $20,000 and domestic violence. For the former he was sentenced as a third-offense habitual offender to a within-guidelines “minimum of 57 months and a maximum of 20 years.” The only issue on appeal was whether his 57- and 58-month minimum sentences were reasonable. The trial court emphasized “the severity of defendant’s crimes.” It found that the amount of damage he was able to do “‘in one single evening to the tune of over $100,000’ was ‘shocking.’ So too for ‘the psychological damage that [he] impacted on’” the victim (A), his then-girlfriend. It “also balanced that severity with defendant lacking ‘one ounce of remorse or shame or regret,’ highlighting [his] response to police officers after destroying [A’s] house that ‘sometimes shit happens, it is what it.’” The trial court also knew that he was “a habitual offender” and had several felony and misdemeanor convictions, many involving “guns and violent conduct[.]” Defendant asserted he was “still capable of reform through counseling and that his age—63 at sentencing—means he will be ‘less likely to commit crimes’ and thus should have received lesser sentences. But the trial court was aware of [his] age and struggles and yet appropriately balanced those with his significant criminal record and the” crimes here. The court saw nothing in the record showing “‘unusual circumstances that would render [his] presumptively proportionate sentence disproportionate.’”