Sentencing; Downward departure; Consideration of the guidelines; Justification of the extent of the departure; Proportionality; People v Dixon-Bey; Presentence investigation report (PSIR)

Rejecting the prosecution’s arguments that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a downward departure sentence, the court affirmed. Defendant was convicted of unlawful use of a chemical irritant causing death after she threw lye powder at the victim, her father. She had planned to celebrate her 18th birthday on the day of the incident. Her minimum guidelines range was 51 to 85 months. The PSIR recommended a sentence of 5 to 25 years with jail credit. The trial court sentenced her to a year in jail and five years’ probation. On appeal, the prosecution argued that the trial court abused its discretion “because it failed to 1) consider the guidelines, 2) justify the sentence imposed, and 3) issue a proportional sentence.” The court disagreed in all respects. It noted that the trial “court referenced the guidelines multiple times during the sentencing hearing[.]” The court concluded the facts supported that it “consulted and considered the guidelines when sentencing defendant, and decided to depart from them.” As to justification of the extent of the departure, “the trial court detailed its considerations at length during the sentencing hearing, which included defendant’s home life and the victim’s alcoholism, defendant’s limited criminal history, and [her] mental health struggles. Citing United States Supreme Court cases for support, [it] stressed defendant’s youth and lack of brain development, recognizing the impact of age on cognitive and emotional development, and capacity for rehabilitation and change. [It] recognized that defendant had the capacity for change and reformation, and that she was ‘not a threat to society,’ and placed [her] on ‘an intensive probation program’ to ‘allow her to get on track,’ rather than ‘suffer the penalty imposed by law.’” The court held that this articulation was “sufficient justification of the basis for the [trial] court’s imposition of sentence, including its decision to impose jail time and intensive probation in lieu of a lengthier prison sentence.” As to proportionality, the court concluded “the trial court did not abuse its discretion because it properly evaluated the involved circumstances, and imposed a proportionate sentence in light of” them.