Sentencing; Proportionality; People v Milbourn; Within-guidelines sentence; People v Posey; Mitigating factors; People v Bailey; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Sentencing mitigation; People v Yeager

The court held that defendant’s within-guidelines sentences were proportionate and that he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel at sentencing. Defendant was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to concurrent minimum terms of 46 months for assaulting, resisting, or obstructing an officer and third-degree fleeing and eluding after he drove a van without a license plate, refused to stop, fled through residential areas, and later fought with an officer who found him in the van outside a bar. On appeal, the court first held that defendant failed to overcome the presumption of proportionality attached to his within-guidelines sentences because “much of the information provided in defendant’s post-sentencing motion was either presented in the PSIR or discussed at trial,” including his disabilities, substance use, housing situation, and volunteer work. The court emphasized that the trial court was not required to “expressly discuss these potentially mitigating facts[.]” It also noted that his record included “12 misdemeanor convictions and eight felony convictions,” five prison sentences, and the offenses here were committed while he was on bond for domestic violence against his “blind-and-deaf sister.” The court also found the offenses “particularly dangerous” because defendant fled “through residential neighborhoods at an excessive speed.” The court next held that counsel was not ineffective because the PSIR was “thorough and contained several potentially mitigating facts,” making further investigation arguably unnecessary. He also failed to show prejudice because the trial court later stated that the mitigation report “would not have changed its determination of the appropriate sentence.” Affirmed.