Sentencing; Doubling a defendant’s guidelines pursuant to MCL 333.7413(1); People v Lockridge; People v Hines

On remand from the Supreme Court, the court held that the trial court erred in doubling defendant’s “guidelines to determine his minimum sentence pursuant to MCL 333.7413(1).” Thus, it vacated his sentences for his four drug-related convictions and remanded “for resentencing under the framework set forth in Hines.” He was also convicted of firearms offenses. After the court previously affirmed his convictions and sentences, the Supreme Court issued an order remanding the case to allow defendant to file a supplemental brief as to whether, in light of Lockridge, “‘a court can double an individual’s sentencing guidelines pursuant to MCL 333.7413(1).’” That statute gives a trial court “the discretion to impose a sentence of imprisonment ‘for a term not more than twice the term otherwise authorized’ on a defendant convicted of a second or subsequent drug offense as defined by the statute.” In Lockridge, the Supreme Court ruled that Michigan’s “sentencing guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment’s fundamental right to a jury trial to the extent that [they] required ‘judicial fact-finding beyond facts admitted by the defendant or found by the jury to score . . . (OVs) that mandatorily increase the floor of the guidelines minimum sentence range’” (the mandatory minimum sentence). In Hines, the court determined that post-Lockridge, “‘the minimum allowed sentence is no longer limited to twice the sentencing guidelines range. Rather, the enhanced minimum could be up to ⅔ of the new statutory maximum.’” The court found that the Hines defendant “was entitled to resentencing because the trial court erroneously doubled the guidelines to determine the defendant’s minimum sentence even though [it] had adequately explained its reasons for doubling the defendant’s statutory maximum sentence pursuant to MCL 333.7413(1).” The court concluded that the trial court made the same error in this case.