Sentencing proportionality; People v Steanhouse; Within-guidelines presumption; People v Posey; Departure sentencing extent; People v Milbourn; Request for reassignment on remand; People v Hill; Sufficiency of the evidence for a prisoner in possession of a weapon (PPW) conviction; Constitutional & statutory rights to a speedy trial; Operating while intoxicated third offense (OWI-3rd); Blood alcohol content (BAC)

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s convictions and that his rights to a speedy trial were not violated, but that both sentences were disproportionate and required resentencing. Defendant was convicted in two consolidated cases after a jury found him guilty of PPW (for possessing a dismantled razor blade in jail) and OWI-3rd (after crashing a vehicle with a 0.2266 BAC and then fleeing into a river). The trial court imposed a top-of-the-guidelines minimum of 58 months for PPW and an upward-departure minimum of 25 years for OWI-3rd, reasoning the PPW conduct created a “serious risk of harm” and that prior OWI sentences “have not kept th[e] community safe” from defendant. On appeal, the court first held that sufficient evidence was offered to support his PPW conviction and that both his constitutional and statutory rights to a speedy trial were not violated. As to his sentences, it concluded the PPW minimum, though within the 14-to-58-month range, was unreasonable because the “circumstances of the offense” were atypically mitigating, including that defendant “‘did not actually harm anybody other than [him]self,’” that he had “discarded” the blade, he had no cellmate, and he “lacked intent and opportunity to harm another.” These facts created “unusual circumstances” sufficient to overcome the presumption of proportionality. The court next held that the OWI-3rd sentence was disproportionate because the 25-year minimum was “nearly four times” the top of the 19-to-76-month range and the trial court’s analogy to habitual violent offenders did not justify the extent of the departure. The court explained that even if some departure could be supported, its extent embodied a proportionality violation. The court rejected his request for reassignment, finding no showing under the Hill factors that resentencing by the same judge was necessary to preserve the appearance of justice. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.