Proportionality; People v Steanhouse; Within-guidelines presumption; People v Posey; Resentencing after probation revocation; MCL 771.4; People v Hendrick; Indigency; Costs & fees; MCL 769.1k; MCL 769.1l; People v Jackson

The court held that defendant’s within-guidelines minimum sentence after probation revocation was proportionate and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to waive costs and fees absent evidence of “extraordinary financial circumstances.” Defendant pled guilty to unarmed robbery and AWIM arising from a robbery plan that resulted in the victim’s death, received a jail-and-probation sentence under a plea agreement, and was warned that if she returned on a violation “all bets are off” because the guidelines called for 14 to 23 years. After she absconded, failed to report, and later returned to custody, the trial court revoked probation and resentenced her to 15 to 60 years on the assault conviction (and 6 to 15 years on robbery) within the 171-to-285-month guidelines range, explaining she was “clearly involved in a murder,” “set it up,” and “could have been convicted of felony murder.” On appeal, the court emphasized revocation “simply clears the way for a resentencing on the original offense,” and although the guidelines are advisory they remain “highly relevant,” creating a presumption of proportionality for a within-guidelines sentence that the defendant must rebut with “unusual circumstances.” It concluded the trial court provided an adequate rationale tied to the “seriousness of the underlying offense conduct” and defendant’s post-sentencing absconding, and defendant’s mitigation arguments did not overcome the presumption. The court also affirmed denial of an indigency-based waiver of $1,326 in costs and fees, citing that incarcerated defendants bear a “heavy burden” to show “extraordinary financial circumstances” and defendant provided no evidence beyond generalized claims about limited prison income and necessities. Affirmed.