Sentencing; Upward departure; Particularized reasons for consecutive sentences

The court held that defendant’s sentences must be vacated and remanded for clarification or resentencing. He was convicted of CSC I, CSC II, and contributing to the neglect or delinquency of a minor. He was sentenced above the guidelines, with the sentences for three counts to be served consecutive to the sentences for four other counts. Defendant first argued “that the trial court erred by failing to articulate adequate reasons for its upward-departing sentence.” The court concluded that “it was not unreasonable for the trial court to consider that the impact on the family of defendant’s crimes was significant. The trial court estimated that 100 people were affected by defendant’s actions, including the victims’ mother and other relatives. [OV] 5 considers the psychological injury to a victim’s family member, but points are only assessed for certain homicide-related crimes.” Thus, the trial court could not assess points for OV 5 for his “offenses, despite the effect defendant’s actions had on the victims’ relatives, including their mother.” The court noted that the “trial court also spoke to the psychological impact to the victims when explaining its sentencing decision. The psychological impact on victims, however, is accounted for by OV 4.” Further, it held that “10 points may be assessed for OV 10 when an offender ‘exploited a victim’s physical disability, mental disability, youth or agedness, or a domestic relationship, or the offender abused his or her authority status.’” It concluded that these points were assessed to account “for the children’s ages and relationship to defendant.” The court determined that if “there was an impact on these victims for which OV 4 or OV 10 did not adequately account, then the trial court failed to explain and justify why its chosen sentence was more proportionate to defendant and his offenses than a different sentence would have been.” The trial court sentenced him “to a minimum 30 years in prison for Counts I, II, and III, and to life for Count IV. These sentences exceeded the minimum guidelines range, but the trial court failed to provide adequate explanation for the extent of its departure, particularly on the life sentence.” As such, the court remanded to either to resentence him “on Counts I, II, III, and IV, or to articulate why the departure sentences are reasonable and proportionate.” Finally, defendant argued that he was entitled to resentencing as to Count VI. The trial court sentenced him “to a minimum 25 years in prison as to Count VI, however, and MCL 750.520b(2)(b) requires a minimum 25-year sentence for a CSC-I conviction that involves a victim under 13 years old and a defendant 17 years of age or older.” Thus, the court held that the “trial court did not exceed that minimum, and defendant is not entitled to resentencing as to Count VI.”