Sentencing; Proportionality challenge to a within-guidelines sentence; People v Posey; Presumption of reasonableness; “Unusual” circumstances; People v Ventour

Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing defendant’s within-guidelines sentence, the court affirmed. He was convicted of kidnapping, extortion, unlawful imprisonment, AWIGBH, FIP, felonious assault, and multiple felony-firearm counts. He was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender. The only sentence he challenged on appeal was his 38 to 60-year sentence for the kidnapping conviction. “A 38-year (456-month) minimum sentence is within the statutory guidelines of 171 to 570 months.” Thus, he had to “overcome the presumption that the sentence was reasonable.” He did not present “any unusual circumstances that would render the sentence disproportionate. The crime was particularly severe—defendant kidnapped a child, took his phone, and then beat him and held him at gunpoint. The fact that” the victim (KB) “had slept with defendant’s daughter and allegedly stolen his property the night before the crime explains defendant’s motive, but it does not justify or mitigate the brutality of the offense. As the trial court noted at sentencing, ‘this was a completely unnecessary crime.’” Defendant contended “the trial court excessively focused on punishment as opposed to other sentencing factors.” But the record belied “this argument—the trial court clearly considered the seriousness of the offense, noting the significant size and age difference between defendant and KB, and it found that defendant was ‘not a changed man’ after his three previous felonies, that he had expressed ‘zero remorse’ for the crime, and that he was ‘a great danger to society.’” The court noted that “the trial court was not required to consider all the possible sentencing factors, nor was it required to ‘expressly explain why a within-guidelines sentence is reasonable and proportionate.’”