Sentencing; OV 4; Psychological injury; MCL 777.34(1)(a); People v Lampe; Departure sentence; Proportionality; People v Steanhouse; Lack of remorse; Untruthful testimony; Rehabilitation potential

The court held that the trial court did not err by scoring OV 4 at 10 points and did not abuse its discretion by imposing a departure sentence for defendant’s AWIGBH conviction. Defendant was convicted after an altercation with his adult daughter in which testimony showed that he fired gunshots, hit her in the face, and kicked her while she was on the ground in a fetal position. On appeal, the court first held that OV 4 was properly scored at 10 points because the trial court did not rely on speculation about a typical victim’s reaction, but instead “relied on the victim’s testimony about the assault and the effects of it” when finding serious psychological injury. The victim testified at sentencing about “nightmares, depression, and anxiety,” and the court held that this evidence, together with testimony that her father inflicted the injuries, was sufficient to support the score. The court next held that defendant’s 5-to-15-year departure sentence was proportionate even though his guidelines range was 10 to 46 months. It rejected his argument that the trial court improperly relied on acquitted conduct, explaining that “a fair reading of the sentencing transcript” showed the trial court referred to defendant’s conduct related to the conviction, including that he was “not owning” that he kicked and punched the victim and was “still taking the position that everybody else [was] lying[.]” The court also held that the trial court properly considered defendant’s lack of remorse because he claimed he was only defending his wife and suggested the victim had “some type of mental issue going on.” Finally, the court held that the guidelines did not fully account for the harm caused by the assault, including the damage to the victim’s relationships with her father, mother, and siblings. Affirmed.