Upward departure sentence; Reasonableness & proportionality; People v Steanhouse; People v Walden; Reassigning a case on remand; People v Walker; Operating while intoxicated, third offense (OWI 3rd)

The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in resentencing defendant on remand, and that remand to a different judge was necessary. He pled guilty to OWI 3rd and was sentenced above the recommended guidelines range (0 to 6 months) to 36 to 60 months. The court previously vacated his “sentence and remanded for the trial court to articulate a basis for the upward departure or to resentence” him. On remand, the trial court sentenced him to 396 days with 396 days’ credit for time served and “to a two-year term of home detention.” In this appeal, the court concluded the “trial court abused its discretion by solely justifying its sentencing decision on its disagreement over the severity of punishment for OWI 3rd recommended by the” guidelines. In the prior appeal, the court stated that to the extent the trial court relied “on its policy disagreement with the sentencing guidelines, such reasoning was insufficient to support an upward departure from” them. It concluded the other reasons the trial court gave for its departure “either did not support an upward departure or the extent of the particular upward departure in this case. On remand, the trial court did not expand on its reasoning in support of the sentence imposed. Instead, [it] expressly and exclusively justified its sentencing decision on its previously-stated disagreement over the severity of punishment for OWI 3rd advised by the” guidelines. Thus, it sentenced defendant to a departure sentence based on its belief that the “guidelines generally do not punish those convicted of OWI 3rd severely enough. This is not a proper basis for an upward departure. This reasoning does not consider anything particular about defendant or his offense as required under the principle of proportionality.” The court noted that despite its specific instructions, the trial court on remand failed to “explain how the departure sentence was proportional, by articulating how the circumstances of this offense and offender would result in a sentence of 396 days’ imprisonment and a two-year term of home detention.” Further, applying the Walker factors, the court determined that it was “unreasonable to expect the original judge to be able to put previously-expressed subjective views out of mind without substantial difficulty were we to remand this case to that judge for a third time.” Vacated and remanded to a different judge.