Sentencing; Reasonableness & proportionality; People v Posey; People v Boykin

On remand from the Supreme Court, the court held that defendant’s 210 to 480-month sentence for his armed robbery conviction was reasonable and proportionate. He was also convicted of AWIGBH, CCW, and felony-firearm. His minimum guidelines range for the armed robbery conviction was 126 to 210 months. He argued that his sentence was disproportionate because he did not have any “prior felony convictions, and the circumstances did not justify a sentence at the top of the guidelines range.” The court disagreed. While he emphasized “that he received the harshest possible sentence available under the guidelines, that only means that he received the harshest recommended sentence within the class of offenders with a like background who committed an offense of comparable seriousness. The mere fact that defendant did not have any prior felony convictions does not itself demonstrate that a sentence at the high end of the guidelines is disproportionate.” In sentencing him, the trial court also considered his alcoholism. Further, it was clear from the record “that the trial court considered defendant’s reformation potential, the protection of society, discipline, and deterrence,” before determining “that the seriousness of the offense warranted a lengthy sentence. The trial court clearly articulated why defendant deserved a sentence at the top of the guidelines. Defendant decided to commit an armed robbery, discharged his firearm, and shot the victim in the face. The victim lived but sustained serious injury and permanent loss of vision in one eye. The victim spoke at the sentencing hearing and detailed how the quality of his life drastically diminished after this tragic incident. The victim had to undergo lengthy rehabilitation and ultimately lost his job.” The court upheld the trial court’s sentence in light of “the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender[.]” Affirmed.