Sentencing; Scoring challenge that would not change defendant’s guidelines range; Validity of the sentence; Misconception of law; Goals of sentencing; People v Sabin; Failure to mention “reformation”; Proportionality challenge to a within-guidelines sentence; MCL 769.34(10); People v Posey; “Unusual circumstances”

The court rejected defendant’s claim that her sentence was invalid because it was based on misconceptions of law by the trial court, and concluded she failed to show unusual circumstances to overcome the presumption her within-guidelines sentence was proportionate. The court declined to consider her challenge to the scoring of OV 16 given that reducing this score would not change her guidelines range. She next argued “her sentence was invalid because the trial court erroneously stated that it was required to impose a minimum sentence at the top end of the guidelines.” But the trial court made the challenged statement “in the context of providing its reasoning for the sentence, emphasizing the seriousness of the crime and defendant’s criminal history. [It] presumably would not have explained the reasons for the sentence if it believed that it was legally obligated to issue a particular minimum sentence at the top end of the guidelines.” It also started the statement by referring “to this ‘particular case,’ noting that the guidelines provided a ‘range’ for the minimum sentence.” And at the hearing on her motion for resentencing, the trial court judge clarified “I clearly understood that the sentencing guideline range did not dictate or mandate that I had to sentence her at the high end.” The court concluded it was “patently clear that the trial court was not operating on a misconception of law; it fully appreciated that it had the discretion to impose a minimum sentence that was not at the top end of the guidelines range.” Defendant also asserted it sentenced her “under a misconception of law when it failed to mention ‘rehabilitation’ as” a sentencing goal. But the trial court judge explained this at the motion for resentencing hearing – “I did not say reparations. I said reformation and the transcriptionist typed it wrong, so it’s just an error.” Thus, the trial court, “on the record, included reformation of the offender, or, synonymously, rehabilitation, when listing the purposes of sentencing.” She did not offer any reason to doubt its explanation. Finally, her claims “about the trial court’s purported trauma from courtroom violence and about the two other court cases in Michigan, aside from being evidentially flawed, simply do not establish unusual circumstances attendant to this particular case. The 10-year minimum sentence was proportionate and not cruel or unusual.” Affirmed.