Sentencing; Proportionality; Effect of a within-guidelines sentence; People v Posey; Unusual circumstances; People v Burkett; Effect of defendant’s age; De facto life sentence; People v Purdle (On Remand); Wide minimum guidelines range; People v Lowery; Sentence exceeding life expectancy; Distinguishing People v Eads

The court held that defendant’s age did not render his within-guidelines sentence disproportional or a life sentence, and that he did not establish an unusual circumstance to overcome the presumption of proportionality. He was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 50 to 75 years. His minimum guidelines range was 365 to 1,200 months. He was in his 50s at the time of the crime. While he asserted the trial court did not consider his circumstances in sentencing him, at sentencing it cited the facts of the case, “noting defendant lied to the police, continued to visit” his wife’s (H] home even though he was not welcome, and killed the victim there “with either a gun or a sharp instrument.” The court noted that while “defendant’s age may have rendered any sentence within the guidelines range a de facto life sentence, the trial court considered the facts of the case and the impact defendant’s actions had on the victim’s family.” As to his claim that the minimum “guidelines range was too wide and gave the trial court ‘unfettered discretion’ to render his sentence[,]” it was true that his range spanned 70 years, but the fact that he was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender enhanced his range. In arguing that his sentence was disproportionate because it exceeded his life expectancy and he could not be expected to serve it, citing Eads, the court noted that he was not a juvenile and his sentence was not an upward departure from the guidelines. As to his contention that “his sentence was a de facto life without the possibility of parole sentence, which is reserved for” first-degree murder convictions, rendering it disproportionate for his second-degree murder conviction, the court rejected this argument in Purdle. “The offense conduct, conviction, and sentence imposed in Purdle, which [it] held was proportionate, are similar to the offense conduct, conviction, and sentence imposed here.” Affirmed.