Sentencing; Proportionality; Effect of a within-guidelines sentence; People v Posey (Posey I); Whether remand was required for rearticulation; People v Posey (On Remand)

The court held that the “trial court did not violate the principle of proportionality, impose an unreasonable sentence, or otherwise err” in imposing a top of the guidelines sentence in resentencing defendant. She was originally sentenced to 37-1/2 to 60 years for second-degree murder, 2 years for felony-firearm, and 2 to 5 years for CCW. The court previously remanded for correction of certain PRV and OV scores altering her guidelines range. The trial court resentenced her to the same sentences. She now argued that her sentence for the murder conviction was disproportionate, and that remand was required for rearticulation or resentencing because the trial court did not state sufficient reasoning for its sentence. The court disagreed. As to proportionality, her sentence was within the guidelines. Thus, she had the burden to rebut the presumption it was proportionate. The court held that she “failed to do so. There are no particular, unusual mitigating facts concerning the crime or defendant herself to suggest that the 37½-year minimum sentence for second-degree murder is unreasonable or disproportionate. Rather, this case involved a senseless murder about a parking space that could have been avoided with a minimal amount of reflection or self-control.” While she asserted “the trial court should have expressly considered her relative lack of criminal history and her institutional record,” the court noted “that ‘trial courts are not required to expressly or explicitly consider mitigating factors at sentencing.’” It also noted that “rebutting the presumption of proportionality requires something more compelling than the mere absence of aggravating facts concerning the offense or the offender.” It further found that no remand was required. A sentencing court does not need “‘to expressly explain why a within-guidelines sentence is reasonable and proportionate.’” In addition, “the trial court stated on the record that it reviewed its earlier sentencing and its comments, which indicates that it was incorporating the original sentencing to that extent. Thus, by doing so and by referencing the underlying facts of the crime during resentencing, [it] sufficiently explained why it imposed its within-guidelines sentence.” Affirmed.