Opinion
No. 105084.
December 18, 1998.
Leave to Appeal Denied December 18, 1998.
Leave to cross appeal is also denied. Court of Appeals No. 160177.
I would grant leave to appeal in this case to consider whether the defendant's sentence of fifteen to twenty-five years for second-degree murder is disproportionate. Here, the minimum sentence falls within the sentencing guidelines, making the sentence presumptively proportionate. People v. Broden, 428 Mich. 343, 354-355 (1987). In People v. Cervantes, 448 Mich. 620, 627 (1995), this Court recognized that legislatively enacted guidelines provide that
"if a minimum sentence is within the appropriate guidelines sentence range, the court of appeals shall affirm that sentence and shall not remand for resentencing absent an error in scoring the sentencing guidelines or inaccurate information relied upon in determining the defendant's sentence." [Quoting MCL 769.34(10); MSA 28.1097(3.4)(10).]
It appears that the Court of Appeals mistakenly concluded, as did we in People v. Milbourn, 435 Mich. 630 (1990), that the Legislature intended that a sentence within the guidelines could be an abuse of discretion. It is well settled that an appellate court reviews a trial court's sentencing determinations for an abuse of discretion. People v. Coles, 417 Mich. 523 (1983). In this case, that involved a dispute between rival groups of teens and guns fired into a crowd which accidentally took their effect on a friend of the defendant, the Court of Appeals merely noted that it was "not persuaded that a sentence at the maximum end of the sentencing guidelines was appropriate." The fact that the appellate court was "not persuaded" certainly does not amount to abuse of discretion and does not justify vacating the defendant's sentence.
A jury convicted defendant of second-degree murder. Defendant was fifteen at the time he committed this homicide. The trial court determined that it was appropriate to sentence defendant as an adult. The sentencing guidelines were four to fifteen years. The court imposed a top-of-the-guidelines-range sentence of fifteen to twenty-five years. The Court of Appeals stated that a serious offense had been committed warranting a significant sentence. Nevertheless, the court went on to hold that the fifteen-year minimum sentence was disproportionate, given defendant's age and lack of criminal history. The prosecutor has appealed.
I would peremptorily reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court's fifteen- to twenty-five-year sentence. This Court has never held that a within-the-guidelines sentence was disproportionate. Defendant's youth explains his lack of a criminal history. However, defendant's background is not entirely clean. The presentencing investigative report indicates that defendant had been suspended from school twice, with one of the suspensions for fighting, and had been arrested for shoplifting. Defendant committed a very adult crime and a sentence within the guidelines was not disproportionate.
WEAVER, J.
I join in the statement of Justice TAYLOR.