Sentencing; Scoring of OV 3; MCL 777.33(1)(c); Consideration of injuries defendant sustained; People v Laidler; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Scoring of OV 13; MCL 777.43(1)(c) & (2)(a); People v Carll; Proportionality of a departure sentence; People v Dixon-Bey

Holding that OVs 3 and 13 were properly scored, and that defendant’s departure sentences for his AWIGBH convictions did not violate the principle of proportionality, the court affirmed. He was also convicted of felony-firearm and carrying a firearm with unlawful intent. He was sentenced as a second-offense habitual offender. He only challenged his AWIGBH sentences on appeal. While his minimum guidelines range was 34 to 83 months, the trial court imposed a concurrent sentence of 10 to 15 years for each AWIGBH conviction. He first argued that it erred in assessing 25 points for OV 3 for injuries that he sustained. But in Laidler, the Michigan “Supreme Court rejected the argument ‘that a victim and an offender cannot be the same person,’ and rejected ‘a definition of “victim” that excludes offenders and co-offenders.’” Defendant tried to distinguish that case on the basis that the defendant there “was held accountable for injuries to a co-defendant, whereas, in this case, he was held accountable for injuries he sustained. But Laidler makes no such distinction[.]” Defendant also challenged the scoring of 25 points for OV 13. While he relied on Carll, the court noted that the two troopers testified he “threatened them by pointing a handgun at them two times, and so the record indicates that there were ‘separate acts in a single criminal episode,’ substantiating at least two crimes that constitute a pattern of felonious criminal activity.” As for a third criminal act, “the trial court correctly referenced defendant’s plea to attempted resisting and obstructing” from 2020. The PSIR indicated that he “was originally charged with multiple counts of resisting and obstructing, and the trial court considered the factual basis for defendant’s 2020 conviction, including that [he] actively resisted multiple” officers. As to his proportionality claim, “the trial court provided extensive reasoning for the departure sentence, describing several factors that it believed the guidelines did not reflect.” These included “the planning, intent, and lack of hesitation that defendant had displayed and described [his] ‘torture kit.’” It also found his targeting of law enforcement “particularly concerning” and noted he “had a criminal history beyond what the scoring of his” PRVs had considered.