Sentencing; Departure sentence; People v Steanhouse; Sentencing guidelines; OV 9 scoring; MCL 777.39; People v Teike; Proportionality; People v Dixon-Bey; Mitigating factors; People v Bailey

The court held that defendant’s above-guidelines sentence for bank robbery was reasonable and proportionate because the trial court adequately justified the departure. Defendant pled guilty after presenting a note to a bank teller claiming he had a gun and demanding money, though no weapon was ever found. The guidelines recommended 5 to 17 months, but the trial court imposed a 38-month minimum sentence. On appeal, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the guidelines did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offense. Although OV 9 was scored at zero because fewer than two victims were placed in actual danger, the trial court reasonably found that falsely threatening to have a gun in a bank created the risk of an “immediate and very substantial and serious” law-enforcement response that could endanger multiple people. The court next held that the trial court sufficiently explained why a higher sentence better served deterrence and punishment, noting that a short jail sentence would not deter similar conduct. Finally, the court held that the trial court considered defendant’s mitigating circumstances, including his limited recent criminal history and personal background, but reasonably concluded that a departure sentence was still more proportionate given the seriousness of the offense. Affirmed.