Sentencing; Departure from the guidelines; Proportionality; People v Walden; Adequate justification; People v Dixon-Bey; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and did not impose an unreasonable sentence in sentencing defendant, and that his trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the upward departure. Defendant was convicted of FIP; aggravated domestic violence, second offense; assault with a dangerous weapon; domestic violence or knowing assault on a pregnant individual, third offense; and felony-firearm. The applicable guidelines range was 19 to 38 months. The trial court imposed sentences of 40 to 60 months. The court noted that it “did not explicitly speak in terms of proportionality or expressly state that it was providing an explanation for its departure from the guidelines, and in many cases such an omission would require a remand for a more robust explanation ‘in order to facilitate appellate review.’” But under the circumstances here, it was “confident that the trial court’s comments at sentencing were its explanation, articulated relevant proportionality considerations, and adequately justified its two-month upward departure from the applicable guidelines range.” The court concluded that the trial court’s comments “at the sentencing hearing, although rather sparse,” could be reasonably inferred as its rationale for departing from the guidelines. “As in Walden, [its] comments relate to ‘factors not considered by the guidelines, such as . . . the defendant’s expressions of remorse, and the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation[.]’” It found that defendant’s “lack of remorse and refusal to take accountability were reflected in the [trial] court’s statements that [he] showed a complete disregard for [the victim] and people in general and that defendant’s testimony had been ‘malarkey.’ [It] also questioned [his] rehabilitation potential, stating: ‘I don’t even know if the sentence that I could hand down . . . is going to change’ defendant’s disrespect and lack of self-control.” Given that its “comments, in context, relate specifically to factors used to fashion a proportionate sentence, they provide justification for the” small departure here. The “explanation—though somewhat meager—is adequate for purposes of appellate review.” Affirmed.