e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 85854
Opinion Date : 05/28/2026
e-Journal Date : 06/11/2026
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : People v. Cano
Practice Area(s) : Criminal Law
Judge(s) : Per Curiam – Trebilcock, Boonstra, and Letica
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Sentencing; Proportionality; Presumption for within-guidelines sentences; People v Posey; People v Snow factors; Giving greater weight to the reformation factor; People v Boykin; Operating while impaired (OWI)

Summary

Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in “imposing a proportionate and reasonable minimum sentence within the recommended guidelines range[,]” the court affirmed defendant’s sentence. He was convicted of meth possession and possession of less than 25 grams of fentanyl. The trial court imposed a within-guidelines sentence (as a fourth habitual offender) of 24 months to 20 years for the meth offense. He argued on appeal that this “was unreasonable and disproportionate.” The court noted that within-guidelines sentences are afforded a presumption of proportionality. At sentencing, the trial court recognized that defendant “was 34 years’ old, had obtained his GED, and had accumulated four prior felony and nine misdemeanor convictions. The circumstances surrounding the offense were that the police went to arrest [him] on an unrelated warrant and found him in possession of both meth[] and fentanyl. The [trial] court further recognized that the guidelines recommended a minimum sentence between 10 and 46 months, and that it was required to impose a proportionate sentence. [It] determined that defendant was not ‘an appropriate candidate for a probationary sentence,’ referencing its imposition of an 18-month to 5-year prison term for” his OWI, third offense conviction over six months earlier. He asserted that its “rationale was insufficient because it was too focused on his reformation as opposed to the other Snow considerations. But the sentencing court was free to put greater weight on the reformation factor.” The court added that “the Snow factors are ‘not the only relevant sentencing criteria[.]’” Further, because “the trial court presided over defendant’s trial, it was fully aware of [his] history and the circumstances surrounding the offense.” The record showed that it “imposed an individualized sentence.”

Full PDF Opinion