People v. Roberts
Decision Date | 24 March 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 339424,339424 |
Citation | 954 N.W.2d 221,331 Mich.App. 680 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrell Marcus ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
ON REMAND
Ronayne Krause, J. Defendant was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm (felon-in-possession), MCL 750.224f, and of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b. The jury found defendant not guilty of assault with intent to commit murder (AWIM), MCL 750.83, on an aiding-and-abetting theory, MCL 767.39. The trial court sentenced defendant for felon-in-possession as a second-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.10, to 48 to 90 months’ imprisonment, an upward departure from his minimum sentencing guidelines range of 14 to 36 months, consecutive to a mandatory two years’ imprisonment for felony-firearm. Defendant previously appealed his convictions and sentences, and we affirmed.1 Our Supreme Court vacated those parts of our opinion addressing defendant's departure sentence and the trial court's assessment of 25 points for Offense Variable 9, MCL 777.39, and remanded for reconsideration in light of People v. Beck , 504 Mich. 605, 939 N.W.2d 213 (2019). People v. Roberts , 504 Mich. 995, 934 N.W.2d 237 (2019). We again affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In our previous opinion, we provided the following summary of the facts:
Additionally, we now set forth in full the trial court's stated reasons for imposing its departure sentence:
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
Sentencing courts are required to properly score the statutory sentencing guidelines and take the resulting minimum sentence range into account when crafting a particular sentence. People v. Lockridge , 498 Mich. 358, 391-392, 870 N.W.2d 502 (2015) ; People v. Steanhouse , 500 Mich. 453, 474-475, 902 N.W.2d 327 (2017). However, sentencing courts are not otherwise bound by the sentencing guidelines. Lockridge , 498 Mich. at 392, 870 N.W.2d 502 ; Steanhouse , 500 Mich. at 467-470, 902 N.W.2d 327. The sentencing court may, in its discretion, depart from the guidelines range if it explains how that departure is reasonable and proportionate. Lockridge , 498 Mich. at 392, 870 N.W.2d 502 ; Steanhouse , 500 Mich. at 473-475, 902 N.W.2d 327. We review the trial court's ultimate sentence for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard to determine whether it is proportionate to the offender and the circumstances of the offense. Steanhouse , 500 Mich. at 459-460, 473-474, 902 N.W.2d 327. A minimum sentence that falls within the properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable and proportionate. See People v. Carpenter , 322 Mich. App. 523, 532, 912 N.W.2d 579 (2018).
"Under the sentencing guidelines, the circuit court's factual determinations are reviewed for clear error and must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence." People v. Hardy , 494 Mich. 430, 438, 835 N.W.2d 340 (2013). "Whether the facts, as found, are adequate to satisfy the scoring conditions prescribed by statute, i.e., the application of the facts to the law, is a question of statutory interpretation, which an appellate court reviews de novo." Id. The sentencing court may consider "facts not admitted by the defendant or found beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury." Lockridge , 498 Mich. at 392, 870 N.W.2d 502. "Offense variables are properly scored by reference only to the sentencing offense except when the language of a particular offense variable statute specifically provides otherwise." People v. McGraw , 484 Mich. 120, 135, 771 N.W.2d 655 (2009).
III. BECK
It has long been understood that failure to persuade a jury beyond a reasonable doubt is not conclusive as to proofs under the less-stringent preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. Stone v. United States , 167 U.S. 178, 188-189, 17 S. Ct. 778, 42 L.Ed. 127 (1897); Martucci v. Detroit Comm'r of Police ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Lydic
...except when the language of a particular offense variable statute specifically provides otherwise." People v. Roberts (On Remand) , 331 Mich. App. 680, 687-688, 954 N.W.2d 221 (2020) (quotation marks and citations omitted), rev'd in part on other grounds 506 Mich. 938, 949 N.W.2d 455 (2020)......
-
People v. Beesley
...conduct’ means any ‘conduct ... underlying charges of which [the defendant] had been acquitted.’ " People v. Roberts (On Remand) , 331 Mich.App. 680, 688, 954 N.W.2d 221 (2020), reversed on other grounds by 506 Mich. 938, 949 N.W.2d 455 (2020), quoting United States v. Watts , 519 U.S. 148,......
-
People v. Wesch
... ... beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury. Offense variables are ... properly scored by reference only to the sentencing offense ... except when the language of a particular offense variable ... statute specifically provides otherwise." People v ... Roberts, 331 Mich.App. 680, 687-688; 954 N.W.2d 221 ... (2020), reversed in part on other grounds by People v ... Roberts, 506 Mich. 938 (2020) (cleaned up). Finally, ... "[t]he trial court may rely on reasonable inferences ... arising from the record evidence to sustain the scoring ... ...
-
People v. Stokes
...conduct when imposing sentence for the defendant's conviction ...." Id. at 609-610, 939 N.W.2d 213. In People v. Roberts (On Remand) , 331 Mich. App. 680, 954 N.W.2d 221 (2020), this Court explained the scope of application of the principle articulated in Beck . In Roberts , the defendant a......