People v. Girardin, Docket No. 90810

• Citation: 418 N.W.2d 453,165 Mich.App. 264
• Decision Date: 05 February 1988
• Docket Number: Docket No. 90810
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Raymond GIRARDIN, Defendant-Appellant. 165 Mich.App. 264, 418 N.W.2d 453
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)

Page 453

418 N.W.2d 453

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Raymond GIRARDIN, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 90810.

165 Mich.App. 264, 418 N.W.2d 453

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Sept. 10, 1987.

Decided Dec. 21, 1987.

Released for Publication Feb. 5, 1988.

[165 MICHAPP 265] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., Christopher S. Boyd, Pros. Atty., and Mitzi L. McPeck, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.

State Appellate Defender by Richard B. Ginsberg, Detroit, for defendant on appeal.

Before DANHOF, C.J., and BEASLEY and SHEPHERD, JJ.

SHEPHERD, Judge.

Defendant pled guilty to third-degree criminal sexual conduct, M.C.L. Sec. 750.520d; M.S.A. Sec. 28.788(4), in exchange for reduction of the charge of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, M.C.L. Sec. 750.520b; M.S.A. Sec. 28.788(2). Defendant was sentenced to ten to fifteen years in prison. The sole issue on appeal is whether defendant's sentence was an abuse of discretion to the extent that it shocks the conscience of this Court under People v. Coles, 417 Mich. 523, 339 N.W.2d 440 (1983).

Defendant was sentenced in excess of the guidelines recommendation of a minimum of from three to five years. In departing from the guidelines the court referred to defendant's extensive juvenile record, the possible impact on the six-year-old victim, punishment of the defendant, and the deterrent effect of his sentence on others. The court concluded that the guidelines did not accurately reflect the seriousness of the offense.

Defendant admitted penetration of the girl's vagina at the plea proceeding and the presentence [165 MICHAPP 266] report indicates that this occurred on more than one occasion. As we understand it, defendant makes three arguments in order to persuade us that the sentence should shock our conscience.

First, defendant argues that the trial court took into account an improper consideration when it noted the psychological repercussions of the event on the six-year-old victim. Defendant points out that the victim is no longer seeing a counselor. Of course this fact merely means that the child has stabilized for now as opposed to sometime in the future. We note that victim impact statements are a regular part of presentence reports and it therefore seems wholly appropriate that a sentencing court might consider the impact of the crime on the victim.

Defendant's argument is that since there is nothing in the record about possible psychological repercussions it was improper for the trial court to consider the future possibility of such repercussions. In effect, defendant's argument implies that the prosecution should be required to put forward an expert witness to testify as to possible psychological repercussions in the case of young sexual assault victims. We decline to adopt such a rule.

If we assume that the victim had been thirty-six years old and there had been evidence to the effect that she had put her victimization behind her and no longer needed therapeutic help, it might be improper for the court to weigh heavily possible psychological repercussions. However, in the instant case we have a six-year-old victim. We think it is fair to say, and fair for the trial court to consider, that many children, abused sexually while very young, have substantial psychological repercussions. Simply because psychological damage is not present in all cases or not manifested immediately does not mean that the trial court [165 MICHAPP 267] may not take into account the possibility of future trauma. In a sense, the trial judge took judicial notice of the fact that young...