Sentencing; Whether the trial court relied on inaccurate information; People v Jackson; Proportionality; Effect of a within-guidelines sentence; Unusual circumstances; People v Ventour; Presentencing information report (PSIR)

Rejecting defendant’s claims that he was sentenced based on inaccurate information and that his within-guidelines sentence was disproportionate, the court affirmed. But it remanded “for ministerial correction of the PSIR to reflect the correct guidelines range.” The court previously affirmed his convictions of domestic violence, third offense but remanded for resentencing due to a guidelines scoring error. His corrected range was 22 to 76 months. The trial court resentenced him to 76 months to 20 years. He was correct “that the PSIR was not amended to reflect the corrected guidelines[.]” But the dispositive question was “whether the trial court relied upon inaccurate information in resentencing” him. The court noted that documentation the trial court received, “including the presentencing case report and defendant’s sentencing memorandum, reflects the corrected guideline range. And during the resentencing hearing, defense counsel requested that defendant be sentenced to the bottom of the guidelines range, specifying . . . 22 months, and the prosecutor likewise acknowledged that the guidelines had adjusted downward by two months.” The court concluded that while “the trial court itself did not comment on the guidelines range, [it] was apprised of the correct range from multiple sources and nothing in the record suggests that [it] relied on the wrong” range. Because it “did not rely upon an inaccurate guidelines range, defendant is not entitled to resentencing.” Further, he failed to show unusual circumstances rebutting the presumption that his within-guidelines sentence was proportionate. The record showed “the trial court considered ‘punishment, rehabilitation[] prospects, deterrence, and protection of society,’ the traditional objectives of sentencing in Michigan.” In resentencing him, it recognized the work he “had done recently in prison, such as by completing a batterer’s intervention program and maintaining good conduct, but tempered that recognition given defendant’s significant and lengthy criminal record and pattern of committing another offense shortly after release from prison or jail. [It] reasonably determined that a shorter period of incarceration would be ineffective to deter [him] from committing future offenses.”