Sentencing; Effect of a within-guidelines sentence; Validity of MCL 769.34(10); People v Lockridge; People v Schrauben

Concluding that defendant misunderstood Lockridge, the court rejected her contention that it should hold MCL 769.34(10) invalid in light of that decision. She was convicted of AWIM, AWIGBH, and felony-firearm. She was sentenced to “consecutive prison terms of 225 months to 30 years for the AWIM conviction and 38 months to 10 years for the AWIGBH conviction, with each sentence to be served” after the statutory 2-year term for the related felony-firearm convictions. It was undisputed that these sentences fell within her guidelines range. She did not assert an error in the guidelines scoring “or that her sentences were based on inaccurate information[.]” As a result, the court was bound to affirm them. Defendant contended it should rule that MCL 769.34(10) is invalid in light of Lockridge, which held that “the sentencing guidelines are no longer mandatory.” But the court noted that the Supreme Court’s concern there related to judicial fact-finding. “This judicial fact-finding, coupled with a mandatory sentencing scheme, was found by our Supreme Court to deprive criminal defendants of their rights under the Sixth Amendment. . . . The requirements of MCL 769.34(10) do not implicate these concerns, and defendant” offered the court no ground for concluding that Lockridge required it to invalidate the statute.