Sentencing; Reasonable & proportionate; Presentence investigation report (PSIR)

Concluding that defendant’s sentences were reasonable and proportionate, the court affirmed. He claimed that “the sentencing guidelines did not adequately account for his mental health, substance abuse, and family history.” The court disagreed. His “sentences are within his guidelines range. Thus, [he] must overcome the rebuttable presumption that his sentences are proportionate.” He contended “that his family history, substance use, and mental health issues are mitigating factors not considered by the sentencing guidelines, and should have been given more weight by the trial court when crafting his sentences. But the trial court was not required to consider defendant’s mental health or substance abuse history when imposing his sentences.” Nor was it “required to expressly or explicitly consider mitigating factors at sentencing.” Even so, it was aware of his “family history, substance use, and mental health issues at sentencing. These problems were documented in [his] [PSIR], and defense counsel argued that defendant had substance use and mental health issues. The trial court even contacted the mental health court on defendant’s behalf during the sentencing hearing.” Moreover, the record belied “defendant’s claim that his sentences were unreasonable and disproportionate to his particular circumstances. [He] had an extensive criminal history spanning nearly two decades, and was resistant to services meant to assist him with his mental health and substance use issues.” Although he “expressed remorse for his actions at sentencing, the PSIR noted that defendant downplayed his actions and maintained that he was not guilty. Because the trial court was not required to consider [his] family history, substance use, or mental health issues when imposing his sentence, and the record clearly demonstrates [his] lack of remorse, potential for rehabilitation, and his long history of misconduct while in custody, defendant has failed to established that his sentences were unreasonable or disproportionate.” Thus, he was not entitled to resentencing.