By Ben Solis
Gongwer News Service
An upward departure above sentencing guidelines imposed against a man convicted of armed robbery was not proportionate nor reasonable, a split Michigan Court of Appeals ruled last Wednesday.
In an unpublished per curiam opinion released Thursday, the majority in People v. Williams (COA Docket No 368433) vacated the defendant's sentence for the armed robbery conviction and an additional assault with intent to commit murder sentence, which was vacated for different reasons.
The 2-1 decision from Judge Kathleen Jansen and Judge Brock Swartzle remanded the case to the Wayne County Circuit Court for further proceedings.
Judge Thomas Cameron concurred separately with majority's decision to resentence the defendant on the assault with intent to murder conviction but disagreed with the majority on the armed robbery resentencing.
The defendant was convicted in 2002 of first-degree murder, armed robbery, assault with intent to murder and felony firearm possession. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the felony murder conviction, The possibility of parole existed under the assault with intent to murder conviction and the two armed robbery convictions. The felony firearm conviction carried a two-year prison sentence.
The defendant was resentenced twice before the present case rose to the Court of Appeals this year: once in 2017, to 28 to 60 years' imprisonment for the felony murder conviction, and again in 2023, resentenced to 28 to 60 years' imprisonment for the armed robbery and assault with intent to commit murder convictions.
The instant appeal concerned the upward departure of sentencing guidelines for the assault with intent and armed robbery convictions.
The defendant argued he was entitled to resentencing again on the intent conviction because an offense category was incorrectly scored at 100 points, to which the majority agreed.
"The prosecution concedes OV 3 should have been scored 25 points as it relates to assault with intent to commit murder only. Because Harris was shot before the assault of Jenkins, the shooting of Jenkins is not a factual cause of Harris's death," the majority wrote. "We therefore remand for resentencing on the defendant's assault with intent to commit murder conviction. The total OV score for the defendant's assault with intent to commit murder conviction should be lowered from 165 points to 90 points. The correct guidelines range for defendant's assault with intent to commit murder conviction is 11.25 to 18.75 years' imprisonment, or 135 to 225 months."
The court's move to vacate the intent-related sentence nullified consideration on whether the sentence was proportionate and reasonable, but it did not render moot the defendant's appeal on the armed robbery sentence. The majority agreed with the defendant that the upward departure was neither proportionate nor reasonable.
"This case presents unique circumstances. Because defendant's resentencing occurred over 20 years after commission of the crime, the trial court was able to see the long-term negative effects of the defendant's crime on Jenkins," the majority wrote. "During resentencing, the prosecution explained the defendant's conduct had a significant long-term impact on Jenkins. Even 20 years after the incident, Jenkins is in constant pain, takes daily pain medication, and has constant lower body aches."
The majority also noted that the gunshot wound caused partial paralysis in one of the victim's legs.
"He falls often, previously used a walker, and now still requires a cane. Because of his injuries he is unable to work. Jenkins also suffers from depression, and takes antidepressants," the majority wrote. "The long-term negative impact on Jenkins was the primary consideration of the trial court when imposing an above-guidelines sentence, as Jenkins's continued suffering is a factor not adequately accounted for by the guidelines."
Although the sentencing modifiers account for physical injury to a victim, they do not account for the extent of the victim's pain and hardship, the majority said.
"Jenkins has not been able to lead a normal life because of defendant's crimes. Jenkins continues to suffer from physical pain and depression," the majority wrote. "The defendant's actions left Jenkins permanently disabled."
That said, the court ultimately agreed with the defendant's argument that his sentence was disproportionate because he received the same sentence for armed robbery as he did for felony murder, a more serious offense.
"Here, although defendant was not given a higher sentence for a lower-class crime, rather, he was given the same sentence for his lower-class convictions than his felony-murder conviction, the same reasoning still applies," the majority wrote. "The defendant's sentence of 28 to 60 years' imprisonment for armed robbery is disproportional on its face as it is the same sentence he received when he was resentenced for felony murder under Miller. Although the trial court relied on the extensive nature and history of Jenkins's injuries, it appears that the trial court rendered the same sentence for armed robbery as felony murder out of convenience as defendant was set to serve that term regardless."
As such, the trial court abused its discretion, the majority ruled.
In dissent, Cameron wrote that the defendant's argument failed under the reasoning of the precedential People v. Gentry. Even still, Cameron said he questioned whether that precedent was even persuasive in answering the question at hand.
"Gentry's apparent holding that higher-class felonies, as a matter of law, require higher sentences is at odds with Michigan's sentencing procedures. Criminal sentencing in Michigan falls within the discretion of the trial court," Cameron wrote. "When considering a departure sentence, a trial court should consider a variety of factors which are unique to the circumstances at hand. Gentry's reasoning eliminates this discretion in cases where a defendant is convicted of felonies of differing classes, and suggests that offenses in 'lower' crime classes cannot be sentenced to a term equal to or exceeding crimes designated as 'higher' crime classes."
Cameron went on to say that Gentry's simplified proportionality analysis was flawed.
"Here, the victim, Andreal Jenkins, has had long-term, debilitating injuries that are the direct result of the defendant shooting him in the stomach. The trial court explained that the Jenkins's chronic injuries and the negative impact they have had on his life was its primary consideration when it imposed the above-guidelines sentence," Cameron wrote. "It correctly explained that Jenkins's continued suffering is a factor for which the guidelines do not adequately account. Even over 20 years later, Jenkins has not been able to lead a normal life. He suffers from physical pain, depression, and the defendant's actions left him permanently disabled. Given these considerations, defendant's armed robbery conviction was not unreasonable."
Gongwer News Service
An upward departure above sentencing guidelines imposed against a man convicted of armed robbery was not proportionate nor reasonable, a split Michigan Court of Appeals ruled last Wednesday.
In an unpublished per curiam opinion released Thursday, the majority in People v. Williams (COA Docket No 368433) vacated the defendant's sentence for the armed robbery conviction and an additional assault with intent to commit murder sentence, which was vacated for different reasons.
The 2-1 decision from Judge Kathleen Jansen and Judge Brock Swartzle remanded the case to the Wayne County Circuit Court for further proceedings.
Judge Thomas Cameron concurred separately with majority's decision to resentence the defendant on the assault with intent to murder conviction but disagreed with the majority on the armed robbery resentencing.
The defendant was convicted in 2002 of first-degree murder, armed robbery, assault with intent to murder and felony firearm possession. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the felony murder conviction, The possibility of parole existed under the assault with intent to murder conviction and the two armed robbery convictions. The felony firearm conviction carried a two-year prison sentence.
The defendant was resentenced twice before the present case rose to the Court of Appeals this year: once in 2017, to 28 to 60 years' imprisonment for the felony murder conviction, and again in 2023, resentenced to 28 to 60 years' imprisonment for the armed robbery and assault with intent to commit murder convictions.
The instant appeal concerned the upward departure of sentencing guidelines for the assault with intent and armed robbery convictions.
The defendant argued he was entitled to resentencing again on the intent conviction because an offense category was incorrectly scored at 100 points, to which the majority agreed.
"The prosecution concedes OV 3 should have been scored 25 points as it relates to assault with intent to commit murder only. Because Harris was shot before the assault of Jenkins, the shooting of Jenkins is not a factual cause of Harris's death," the majority wrote. "We therefore remand for resentencing on the defendant's assault with intent to commit murder conviction. The total OV score for the defendant's assault with intent to commit murder conviction should be lowered from 165 points to 90 points. The correct guidelines range for defendant's assault with intent to commit murder conviction is 11.25 to 18.75 years' imprisonment, or 135 to 225 months."
The court's move to vacate the intent-related sentence nullified consideration on whether the sentence was proportionate and reasonable, but it did not render moot the defendant's appeal on the armed robbery sentence. The majority agreed with the defendant that the upward departure was neither proportionate nor reasonable.
"This case presents unique circumstances. Because defendant's resentencing occurred over 20 years after commission of the crime, the trial court was able to see the long-term negative effects of the defendant's crime on Jenkins," the majority wrote. "During resentencing, the prosecution explained the defendant's conduct had a significant long-term impact on Jenkins. Even 20 years after the incident, Jenkins is in constant pain, takes daily pain medication, and has constant lower body aches."
The majority also noted that the gunshot wound caused partial paralysis in one of the victim's legs.
"He falls often, previously used a walker, and now still requires a cane. Because of his injuries he is unable to work. Jenkins also suffers from depression, and takes antidepressants," the majority wrote. "The long-term negative impact on Jenkins was the primary consideration of the trial court when imposing an above-guidelines sentence, as Jenkins's continued suffering is a factor not adequately accounted for by the guidelines."
Although the sentencing modifiers account for physical injury to a victim, they do not account for the extent of the victim's pain and hardship, the majority said.
"Jenkins has not been able to lead a normal life because of defendant's crimes. Jenkins continues to suffer from physical pain and depression," the majority wrote. "The defendant's actions left Jenkins permanently disabled."
That said, the court ultimately agreed with the defendant's argument that his sentence was disproportionate because he received the same sentence for armed robbery as he did for felony murder, a more serious offense.
"Here, although defendant was not given a higher sentence for a lower-class crime, rather, he was given the same sentence for his lower-class convictions than his felony-murder conviction, the same reasoning still applies," the majority wrote. "The defendant's sentence of 28 to 60 years' imprisonment for armed robbery is disproportional on its face as it is the same sentence he received when he was resentenced for felony murder under Miller. Although the trial court relied on the extensive nature and history of Jenkins's injuries, it appears that the trial court rendered the same sentence for armed robbery as felony murder out of convenience as defendant was set to serve that term regardless."
As such, the trial court abused its discretion, the majority ruled.
In dissent, Cameron wrote that the defendant's argument failed under the reasoning of the precedential People v. Gentry. Even still, Cameron said he questioned whether that precedent was even persuasive in answering the question at hand.
"Gentry's apparent holding that higher-class felonies, as a matter of law, require higher sentences is at odds with Michigan's sentencing procedures. Criminal sentencing in Michigan falls within the discretion of the trial court," Cameron wrote. "When considering a departure sentence, a trial court should consider a variety of factors which are unique to the circumstances at hand. Gentry's reasoning eliminates this discretion in cases where a defendant is convicted of felonies of differing classes, and suggests that offenses in 'lower' crime classes cannot be sentenced to a term equal to or exceeding crimes designated as 'higher' crime classes."
Cameron went on to say that Gentry's simplified proportionality analysis was flawed.
"Here, the victim, Andreal Jenkins, has had long-term, debilitating injuries that are the direct result of the defendant shooting him in the stomach. The trial court explained that the Jenkins's chronic injuries and the negative impact they have had on his life was its primary consideration when it imposed the above-guidelines sentence," Cameron wrote. "It correctly explained that Jenkins's continued suffering is a factor for which the guidelines do not adequately account. Even over 20 years later, Jenkins has not been able to lead a normal life. He suffers from physical pain, depression, and the defendant's actions left him permanently disabled. Given these considerations, defendant's armed robbery conviction was not unreasonable."
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
