Sentencing; Upward departure; Proportionality; People v Milbourn; Sentencing guidelines; People v Dixon-Bey; Psychological injury; OV 4; MCL 777.34(1)(a); Relationship to victim; People v Walden; Bond violations; Judicial bias; People v Gaines

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an upward departure sentence for defendant’s CSC II convictions. His convictions arose from sexual contact with the 15-year-old victim, and the trial court departed from the 12-to-24-month guidelines range by sentencing him to concurrent 5-to-15-year prison terms. On appeal, the court first held that the trial court did not improperly ignore defendant’s lack of criminal history because it reviewed the PSIR, which included the PRV score, and “‘trial courts are not required to expressly or explicitly consider mitigating factors at sentencing.’” The court next held that OV 4 did not adequately capture the victim’s psychological injury because the record supported the trial court’s findings concerning the “long-term effect,” “permanent damage,” and “violation of trust” caused by defendant’s conduct. The victim was still in therapy, had been diagnosed with PTSD, experienced violent nightmares, struggled with trust, turned to alcohol and marijuana, and described educational delay from “the re-traumatization of this legal process.” The court also held that the trial court properly considered the relationship between defendant and the victim, noting she trusted him, and he was “tasked with protecting” her rather than victimizing her. Finally, the court held that the trial court could consider defendant’s repeated bond violations, including “contacting the victim’s mother, attempting to contact the victim, and sending threats to influence the case[,]” because those facts bore on proportionality, protection of the victim, and the seriousness of the offense. The court rejected his bias argument, explaining that the sentencing judge’s description of the conduct as “disgusting” did not pierce the veil of impartiality because “‘the language of punishment need not be tepid.’” Affirmed.