Sentencing; The trial court’s reasoning for imposing an upward departure sentence; People v Wilcox; Reasonableness & proportionality; People v Dixon-Bey; Scoring of OV 10 (exploitation of a vulnerable victim); MCL 777.40(1); Scoring of OV 8 (asportation); MCL 777.38(1); People v Barrera

The court found that the trial court did not properly articulate why an upward departure sentence was warranted, and remanded. Defendant was convicted of CSC I and sentenced to concurrent terms of 40 to 60 years for each conviction, an upward departure. On appeal, the court agreed with defendant that the trial court erred by failing to justify the departure sentence. It found that beyond “noting that the guidelines did not account for the ‘egregiousness’ of defendant’s actions . . . the trial court did not explain why or justify the extent of the departure.” The trial court “significantly departed from the sentencing guidelines, and the mandatory minimum, and, although a trial court need not use any specific language to justify a departure, it did not adequately articulate its reasoning here for defendant’s sentence. A significant departure sentence may well be warranted in this case, but the trial court must articulate why a particular sentence, including the extent of any departure, is proportionate to this offense and offender. The trial court did not err in scoring OV 8, however, as there was “sufficient evidence from which [it] could find that defendant repeatedly transported the victim from her mother’s house to other locations, where he sexually assaulted her.” The court retained jurisdiction.