e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 81936
Opinion Date : 07/11/2024
e-Journal Date : 07/23/2024
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : People v. Holman
Practice Area(s) : Criminal Law
Judge(s) : Per Curiam - Riordan, Markey, and Swartzle
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Sentencing; Reasonableness & proportionality; People v Posey

Summary

The court held on remand that defendant failed to meet his burden of showing his within-guidelines sentence was unreasonable or disproportionate. He was convicted of AWIM for a nonfatal stabbing at a trailer park. The trial court explained that it was following the PSIR sentencing recommendation, which fell in the middle of the guidelines, sentencing defendant to 40 to 80 years in prison, consecutive to a sentence he was serving in another case. In a prior appeal, the court affirmed, but the Supreme Court later remanded for reconsideration in light of Posey. On remand, the court reached the same result. It rejected his argument that “compared to other cases with the same charge, the offense was far from serious.” It noted his brief on appeal did “not establish that he shows any of the remorse that the trial court noted was lacking at sentencing.” That the victim “did not die does not take away from the seriousness of [his] actions but, instead, is exactly the conduct AWIM prohibits.” The court also rejected his claim that his sentence was disproportionate because some defendants convicted of second-degree murder receive lesser minimum sentences, noting this argument “directly conflicts with the trial court’s requirement to impose a sentence proportionate to the seriousness of this offense and offender.” The trial court “witnessed all of the trial testimony in addition to defendant’s statement at sentencing.” It found he was “manipulative, dangerous, and did not conform his behavior to society’s expectations.” It also noted he “intended to murder a person and sent a message stating that the person needed to die.” The trial court explained that defendant stabbed the victim, did not show remorse, and relied on his “criminal history and status of being on parole at the time of the offense.” Nothing in the record showed that “the trial court failed to consider the offense and offender when imposing defendant’s sentence.” He was not entitled to resentencing. Affirmed.

Full PDF Opinion