People v. Redman

• Decision Date: 15 April 1991
• Docket Number: Docket No. 120294
• Citation: 188 Mich.App. 516,470 N.W.2d 676
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harry Jay REDMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 676

470 N.W.2d 676

188 Mich.App. 516

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harry Jay REDMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 120294.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted March 19, 1991,

at Grand Rapids.

Decided April 15, 1991, at 10:10 a.m.

Released for Publications June 21, 1991.

John B. Payne, Jr., Dearborn, for defendant-appellant.

Before GRIBBS, P.J., and SULLIVAN and RICHARD ALLEN GRIFFIN, JJ.

RICHARD ALLEN GRIFFIN, Judge.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, M.C.L. Sec. 750.520b; M.S.A. Sec. 28.788(2), one count of kidnapping, M.C.L. Sec. 750.349; M.S.A. Sec. 28.581, and one count of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder, M.C.L. Sec. 750.84; M.S.A. Sec. 28.279. Defendant was sentenced to 60 to 90 years in prison for the criminal sexual conduct and kidnapping convictions, and to 6.8 to 10 years for the assault conviction. He now appeals as of right, and we affirm.

In his first two issues on appeal, defendant essentially challenges the severity of his sixty-to-ninety-year sentences for CSC I and kidnapping. Primarily, defendant argues that the court abused its discretion when it declined to adhere to the sentencing guideline which was computed for CSC I and recommended a minimum sentence of ten to twenty-five years. We find no merit in defendant's argument.

In People v. Milbourn, 435 Mich. 630, 461 N.W.2d 1 (1990), our Supreme Court held that a trial court's sentencing discretion is subject to review under the principle of proportionality. This principle requires that a sentence be proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender. Id., p. 636, 461 N.W.2d 1. Under Milbourn, the second edition of the sentencing guidelines are said to provide the best "barometer" for gauging the proportionality of a given sentence. Id., p. 656, 461 N.W.2d 1. However, trial judges remain free to depart from the guidelines when, in their judgment, the recommended range is disproportionate to the seriousness of the crime. Id., p. 657, 461 N.W.2d 1.

Applying this principle to the present case, we find no abuse of sentencing discretion. Indeed, in our view, the facts of this crime present a worst-case scenario which would justify imposing the maximum sentence allowable by law. Id., pp. 650-654, 461 N.W.2d 1. According to the fifteen-year-old victim, defendant, a friend of her brother, forcibly entered her parents' home and removed her against her will. Defendant then drove the victim to a secluded area where he forced her to have sex. At some point thereafter, the victim was put in the trunk of the car while defendant drove around. After removing her from the trunk, defendant forced the victim into a wooded area where he raped her a second time, after which defendant attempted to drown the victim in a swamp. Upon review, we find defendant's sentence proportionate to the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender. Id., p. 636, 461 N.W.2d 1.

Defendant further contends that his minimum sentences of sixty years are invalid because they will exceed his life expectancy and thus violate People v. Moore, 432 Mich. 311, 439 N.W.2d 684 (1989). We disagree. Defendant was twenty-seven years old at the time of sentencing, and it is reasonably possible that defendant will survive into his eighties. People v. Holland, 179 Mich.App. 184, 197, 445 N.W.2d 206 (1989); People v. Rushlow, 179 Mich.App. 172, 179-181, 445 N.W.2d 222 (1989). Also see ...