Sentencing; Proportionality of a departure sentence; Adequate justification; Operating while license suspended (OWLS)

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in departing upward from the guidelines by six months in sentencing defendant. He was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, receiving and concealing stolen property, assault with a dangerous weapon, first-degree fleeing and eluding, OWLS causing death, failure to stop at scene of accident causing death, moving violation causing death, malicious destruction of property between $200 and $1,000, and larceny less than $200. The sentences at issue on appeal were the concurrent terms of 10 to 15 years for the manslaughter, fleeing and eluding, OWLS causing death, and failure to stop at scene of accident causing death convictions. The 10-year minimum “represented a six-month upward departure from the applicable guidelines range of 62 to 114 months in prison.” In imposing the departure, the trial court reasoned that it “was warranted because of the troubling nature of the crime spree, which began with a stolen truck and culminated with manslaughter. [It] also considered the fact that defendant has no apparent potential for rehabilitation, as demonstrated by the fact that he has an extensive criminal history and was ‘given a gift, Mental Health Court, freedom, treatment, and [he] threw it away and [he] killed someone.’” The court concluded the “trial court’s analysis of these facts justifies the relatively minimal six-month upward departure it imposed.” In particular, his “extensive criminal record and the fact that he was sentenced to Mental Health Court at the time of his conduct” supported the finding that he lacked any apparent rehabilitation potential. His PRV score of 150 or 152 points far exceeded “the 75-point cap on the applicable sentencing grid.” The court held that the sentence imposed “was reasonable in light of the fact that defendant has an extensive criminal history not fully accounted for by the guidelines and the fact that the overall, ultimately fatal crime spree demonstrated a lack of concern for safety or criminality also not captured by the guidelines. By the same measure, it is a proportionate punishment for the crimes committed.” Affirmed.