People v. Johnson, Docket No. 106176

• Decision Date: 31 January 1989
• Docket Number: Docket No. 106176
• Citation: 173 Mich.App. 706,434 N.W.2d 218
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwight A. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. 173 Mich.App. 706, 434 N.W.2d 218
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 218

434 N.W.2d 218

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwight A. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 106176.

173 Mich.App. 706, 434 N.W.2d 218

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Nov. 9, 1988.

Decided Dec. 19, 1988.

Released for Publication Jan. 31, 1989.

[173 MICHAPP 706] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. [173 MICHAPP 707] Caruso, Sol. Gen., John D. O'Hair, Pros. Atty., Timothy A. Baughman, Chief of the Crim. Div., and Carolyn Schmidt, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.

Robert M. Morgan, Detroit, for defendant-appellant on appeal.

Before CYNAR, P.J., and HOOD and MURPHY, JJ.

CYNAR, Presiding Judge.

On June 19, 1987, defendant pled guilty to four counts of armed robbery, M.C.L. Sec. 750.529; M.S.A. Sec. 28.797, and one count of assault with intent to commit robbery while being armed, M.C.L. Sec. 750.89; M.S.A. Sec. 28.284. Defendant also pled nolo contendere to four counts of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, M.C.L. Sec. 750.520b; M.S.A. Sec. 28.788(2), and nolo contendere to two counts of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree, M.C.L. Sec. 750.520c; M.S.A. Sec. 28.788(3). On July 7, 1987, defendant was sentenced to 12- 1/2 to 25 years on each of the four armed robbery convictions, as well as the four first-degree criminal sexual conduct convictions and the assault with intent to commit robbery conviction. He was also sentenced to a term of ten to fifteen years on each count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct. All of the sentences were imposed to run concurrently. Thereafter, defendant's motion for resentencing was heard and denied on January 8, 1988. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm.

Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for resentencing. However, defendant has not provided this Court with a transcript of the resentencing hearing. Defendant had the responsibility to file the full transcript of the hearing or provide a settled statement of facts. MCR 7.210(B)(1)(a). Accordingly, we consider this issue abandoned on appeal. People v. Kelly, 122 Mich.App. 427, 429-430, 333 N.W.2d 68 (1983).

[173 MICHAPP 708] Additionally, our review of the record indicates that defendant's claim of error is without merit. In the motion for resentencing, defendant argued that the court did not articulate adequate reasons for imposing sentences which exceeded the guideline range. Defendant contends that, by considering the devastation to the community by the series of assaults committed by the defendant and by noting that eleven separate criminal convictions were involved, the sentencing court improperly considered factors already taken into account under the guidelines. This argument is rejected. People v. Hatch, 156 Mich.App. 265, 268-269, 401 N.W.2d 344 (1986); People v. Diamond, 144 Mich.App. 787, 789, 376 N.W.2d 192 (1985), lv. den. 424 Mich. 894 (1986); People v. Ridley, 142 Mich.App. 129, 134, 369 N.W.2d 274 (1985).

In Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949), the United States Supreme Court reviewed the past as well as the existing objectives of criminal law in imposing sentences. In footnote 13, 337 U.S. at 248, 69 S.Ct. at 1083-84, the Williams opinion makes reference to a writing by a trial judge as to factors that a judge should consider in imposing sentence. Such factors are:

"1st. The protection of society against wrong-doers "2nd. The punishment--or much better--the discipline of the wrong-doer.

"3rd. The reformation and rehabilitation of the wrong-doer.

"4th. The deterrence of others from the commission of like offenses."

The footnote further states:

"It should be obvious that a proper dealing with these factors involves a study of each case upon an [173 MICHAPP 709] individual basis. Was the crime a crime against property only, or did it involve danger to human life? Was it a crime of sudden passion or was it studied and deliberate? Is the criminal a man so constituted and so habituated to war upon society that there is little or no real hope that he ever can be anything other than a menance to society--or is he obviously amenable to reformation?"

In People v. Snow, 386 Mich. 586, 592, 194 N.W.2d 314 (1972), our Supreme Court observed that, in Williams v. New York, supra, "certain basic considerations were found to be proper in determining an appropriate sentence: (a) the reformation of the offender, (b) protection of society, (c) the disciplining...