Sentencing proportionality; Within-guidelines sentence; People v Posey; People v Brcic; Unusual circumstances; People v Ventour; People v Snow factors; Felony-firearm; MCL 750.227b; Consecutive sentencing; Predicate felony; FIP; MCL 750.224f; CCW; MCL 750.227; People v Smith; People v Clark; Judgment of sentence correction

The court held that defendant failed to overcome the presumption that his within-guidelines sentences were proportionate, but that the judgment of sentence had to be corrected because the felony-firearm sentence could not run consecutive to the CCW sentence. Defendant was acquitted of second-degree murder and one felony-firearm count, but convicted of FIP, felony-firearm predicated on FIP, and CCW. The trial court sentenced him as a fourth-offense habitual offender to concurrent 4-to-10-year terms for FIP and CCW, preceded by the two-year felony-firearm sentence. On appeal, the court first held that defendant’s within-guidelines sentences were presumptively proportionate, and he failed to identify “unusual circumstances” to rebut that presumption. The trial court was not required to expressly discuss each Snow factor or explain why a within-guidelines sentence was reasonable, and the record showed it calculated the guidelines and did not impose the discretionary maximum life sentence. The court next held that the trial court erred by making the felony-firearm sentence consecutive to both FIP and CCW. A felony-firearm sentence may run consecutively only to the predicate felony, and MCL 750.227b expressly excludes CCW as a possible predicate offense. Thus, the felony-firearm sentence must run consecutive only to FIP and concurrent with CCW. Affirmed and remanded for correction of the judgment of sentence.