Sentencing; Fourth-offense habitual offender; MCL 769.12; Upward departure; Reasonableness & proportionality; Criminal history & misconduct while incarcerated; Rehabilitation & deterrence; People v Sherrill; Extent of departure; People v Dixon-Bey

The court held that defendant’s 90-to-240-month sentence for CCW, which represented a 14-month upward departure from the top of his advisory minimum guidelines range, was reasonable and proportionate. He was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender. His guidelines range was 24 to 76 months, but the trial court imposed a 90-month minimum based on his escalating criminal history, repeated weapons-related offenses, failure to respond to prior probation, jail, prison, and parole sanctions, and a new assault charge incurred while he was in custody. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the departure improperly double-counted his criminal history because the trial court “did not merely rely on the fact that defendant had a criminal history or was a fourth-habitual offender,” but instead relied on the “escalation in defendant’s criminal behavior to more violent offenses, particularly ones involving weapons,” as well as his new violent charge while in custody. The court concluded that “the trial court based its departure sentence on considerations it found to be unaccounted for or inadequately accounted for by the guidelines, and we see no error in it doing so.” The court also held that the trial court adequately justified the extent of the departure because it explained why 90 months, rather than a guidelines sentence, was necessary for rehabilitation, punishment, deterrence, and public safety. It therefore “adequately explained ‘why the sentence imposed is more proportionate to the offense and the offender than a different sentence would have been.’” Affirmed.