Sentencing; Due process; People v Francisco; Victim-impact statements; MCR 6.425(D)(1)(c)(iv); People v Maben; Sentencing departure; Proportionality; People v Smith; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v Fyda

The court held that remand was required because the trial court failed to explain whether and how inaccurate or unsupported oral victim-impact statements influenced defendant’s resentencing. It also held that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the substantial upward-departure sentence on the FIP conviction. Defendant was resentenced after federal habeas proceedings and a Crosby/Howard remand, and the parties stipulated that the minimum guidelines were 171 to 570 months for AWIM and 12 to 48 months for FIP. At resentencing, family members described the victim’s devastating condition, but also made unsupported claims that defendant shot the victim while he was on the ground, shot him eight times, and had “four young ladies prostituting for him.” The trial court then stated, “initially, I thought I had an idea of what I was going to do . . . but after hearing from [the victim’s] mother and stepfather,” it imposed 35 to 70 years for both convictions. On appeal, the court held that a defendant has a due-process right to be sentenced on accurate information and that a sentence imposed on inaccurate information is “per se invalid.” The court concluded that the record did not support the claims that defendant shot the victim while he was on the ground, that the victim was shot eight times, or that defendant was involved in prostitution, yet the trial court failed to identify what portions of the family’s statements it relied on. The court also held that remand was necessary because the sentencing court did not explain whether those statements were the basis for placing the AWIM sentence at the top of the guidelines and gave no departure rationale at all for the FIP sentence. Finally, the court held that counsel performed deficiently by not objecting to the 35-year minimum sentence on the FIP count, which far exceeded the 12-to-48-month guidelines range. Remanded for further proceedings and resentencing.