Sentencing; Proportionality; People v Posey; Effect of a within-guidelines sentence; “Unusual” circumstances

Concluding nothing in the record suggested defendant’s within-guidelines sentence violated the principle of proportionality, the court held that he was not entitled to resentencing. He was sentenced to 16 to 24 months for resisting a police officer. The statutory maximum for his offense is two years. His minimum guidelines range was 5 to 23 months. The court found that the trial court considered his individual circumstances in sentencing him. “Although a trial court is not required to consider substance-abuse issues when imposing a sentence,” the record here indicated “that the trial court did consider defendant’s individual history of alcohol abuse, as well as the specific circumstances of his offense, including his intoxication. Defendant’s PSIR contained many references to his intoxication at the time of the offense, as well as his history of alcohol addiction. Additionally, defense counsel stated during the sentencing hearing that alcohol was involved in the majority of defendant’s prior offenses. And defendant spoke about his struggle with alcohol addiction and his desire for sobriety. The trial court reviewed the PSIR ‘a couple times’; listened to the remarks from defendant and his counsel during the sentencing hearing; and stated that it was premising defendant’s sentence on ‘the record, and what has occurred in this particular case.’” Thus, the court determined that defendant failed to present “any unique or rare circumstances to rebut the presumptively proportionate sentence handed down by the trial court.” The court further noted (as did the trial court) that his “complete criminal history includes nine felonies and 22 misdemeanors. The trial court acknowledged that defendant’s plea agreement precluded a habitual-offender enhancement, but it also stated that [his] record was ‘very bad,’ such that his ‘guideline range is still five months to 23 months.’” While defendant was correct “that his parole agent recommended that [he] serve 24 months of probation, the trial court has the exclusive power to render a sentence.” Affirmed.