-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

March 22, 2018

v No. 336549

Gladwin Circuit Court

ERIN KATHLEEN DENNIS, LC No. 16-008410-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: STEPHENS, P.J., and SHAPIRO and RONAYNE KRAUSE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant pled guilty to delivery or manufacture of 50 to 499 grams of a controlled 

substance, under MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iii). She was sentenced to a prison term of 7 to 20 years.1 

Defendant appeals claiming that this sentence was unreasonable and that the trial court failed to 

articulate reasons to show that the departure was proportional. For the reasons set forth below, 

we vacate defendant’s sentence for delivery or manufacture of a controlled substance and 

remand for resentencing. 

At her plea hearing, defendant admitted that on November 18, 2015, she drove her 

accomplices to a pharmacy where they broke into the building and stole controlled substances, 

including morphine. Defendant was acting as the lookout when her accomplices stole between 

50 and 449 grams of the controlled substances with the intent to sell it. She also admitted that 

prior to breaking in, she and her accomplices convened and planned the robbery. Defendant 

admitted that this was one of several pharmacies that she and her accomplices had burglarized. 

Defendant’s sentencing guidelines range was 30 to 50 months; however, at sentencing the 

prosecutor stated that if the drug crime had been committed after April 1, 2016, then the 

guidelines range would have been 57 to 95 months because a new law changed the substances 

stolen from Schedule 3 to Schedule 2 drugs. When imposing sentence on defendant, the trial 

court stated:

The Court has reviewed through the presentence investigation report. 

Sentencing guidelines are 30 to 50 months, and if this crime had been committed 

 1 Defendant was also convicted of two counts of breaking and entering with intent, MCL 

750.110, for which she was sentenced to terms of 3 to 10 years. Defendant does not appeal these 

sentences. 
-2-

after April 1st, the guideline range would have been 57 to 95 months, and even 

though this is your first criminal conviction, it’s a very serious crime. 

In order to punish you for what you have done, to attempt to rehabilitate 

you, to deter others from committing similar acts, and protection of the 

community, it’ll be the sentence of this Court that on the controlled substance, 

delivery or manufacture of . . . more than 50 grams, but less than 499 grams, that 

you be sentenced to the Michigan Department of Corrections for a period of seven 

years to 20 years, with credit served for four days served.

On appeal, defendant argues that she is entitled to resentencing because the 7-year 

minimum term, a substantial variance from the advisory range, was disproportionate, and that the 

trial court did not articulate the reasons for the departure to justify the proportionality between 

the sentence and the sentencing offense. We agree.2

This case is controlled by People v Steanhouse (On Remand), ___ Mich App ___, ___; 

___ NW2d ___ (2017) (Docket No. 318329), where we articulated the standards governing 

departure sentences after the guidelines were made advisory in People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 

358, 364, 392; 870 NW2d 502 (2015). Steanhouse held:

Under the principle of proportionality standard, a sentence must be 

“proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense 

and the offender.” Milbourn, 435 Mich at 636. As such, the sentencing court 

must impose a sentence that takes “into account the nature of the offense and the 

background of the offender.” Id. at 651. Generally, sentences falling within the 

minimum sentencing guidelines range are presumptively proportionate. People v 

Cotton, 209 Mich App 82, 85; 530 NW2d 495 (1995). However, a departure 

sentence may be imposed when the trial court determines that “the recommended 

range under the guidelines is disproportionate, in either direction, to the 

seriousness of the crime.” Milbourn, 435 Mich at 657. Factors that may be 

considered under the principle of proportionality standard include, but are not 

limited to:

(1) the seriousness of the offense; (2) factors that were 

inadequately considered by the guidelines; and (3) factors not 

considered by the guidelines, such as the relationship between the 

victim and the aggressor, the defendant's misconduct while in 

custody, the defendant's expressions of remorse, and the 

defendant's potential for rehabilitation. [People v. Lawhorn, ___ 

Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___(2017) (Docket No. 330878); 

slip op at 7 (citation and quotation marks omitted).]

 2 Appellate courts are to review sentences under a standard of reasonableness. People v 

Lockridge, 498 Mich 358, 364, 392; 870 NW2d 502 (2015). A sentence is said to be reasonable 

if it complies with the principle of proportionality set forth in People v Milbourn. People v 

Steanhouse, 313 Mich App 1, 46; 880 NW2d 297 (2015). 
-3-

An appellate court must evaluate whether reasons exist to depart from the 

sentencing guidelines and whether the extent of the departure can satisfy the 

principle of proportionality. See Milbourn, 435 Mich at 659-660 (recognizing 

that “[e]ven where some departure appears to be appropriate, the extent of the 

departure (rather than the fact of the departure itself) may embody a violation of 

the principle of proportionality”). Therefore, even in cases where reasons exist to 

justify a departure sentence, the trial court's articulation of the reasons for 

imposing a departure sentence must explain how the extent of the departure is 

proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and 

the offender. See People v. Smith, 482 Mich 292, 304; 754 NW2d 284 (2008) 

(“When departing, the trial court must explain why the sentence imposed is more 

proportionate than a sentence within the guidelines recommendation would have 

been.”). [Steanhouse (On Remand), ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 2-3.]

In this case, the trial judge did not articulate grounds adequate for us to conclude that this 

substantial departure was proportionate to the offender and the offense. The court noted only 

that the crimes were “very serious” and that “if this crime had been committed after April 1st 

[2016], the guideline range would have been 57 to 95 months. . . .” The referred-to increase on 

April 1, 2016, is due to the reclassification of certain drugs from Schedule 3 to Schedule 2 that 

took effect on that date, and is not relevant to crimes that occurred before that date. Thus, it was 

not grounds to depart in this case. 

In addition, the trial court did not consider some of the nonexhaustive factors that are 

relevant in determining whether a sentence is proportionate. See People v Lawhorn, 320 Mich 

App 194, 207; ___ NW2d ___ (2017). This was defendant’s first conviction and appears to be 

the first time she was ever charged with a crime. In addition, she expressed remorse and was 

cooperating in the prosecution of her collaborators. These are important considerations to 

individualized sentencing. 

Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to provide 

adequate reasons for the substantial guideline departure and that the sentences imposed violated 

the principle of proportionality. Steanhouse (On Remand), ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 5.

We vacate the sentence imposed for defendant’s controlled substance offense, MCL 

333.7401(2)(a)(iii), and remand for resentencing as to that conviction. We deny defendant’s 

request that the resentencing be before a different judge. Defendant has not shown that the 

sentencing judge would have substantial difficulty in putting aside his previously expressed 
-4-

views and we see no reason why the sentencing judge would be unable to conduct a resentencing 

consistent with our direction. People v. Hughes, 165 Mich App 548, 549-550; 418 NW2d 

913(1987).

Remanded for resentencing. We retain jurisdiction. 

/s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens 

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro 

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause 
Court of Appeals, State of Michigan

ORDER

People of MI v Erin Kathleen Dennis

Docket No. 336549

LC No. 16-008410-FC

Cynthia Diane Stephens 

Presiding Judge

Douglas B. Shapiro 

Amy Ronayne Krause 

Judges

Pursuant to the opinion issued concurrently with this order, the Court orders that the July 

20, 2016 judgment of sentence be VACATED, and this matter be REMANDED to the Gladwin Circuit 

Court for the purpose of resentencing defendant. This Court retains jurisdiction in the cause.

Upon the expiration of the 56-day period in which to file an application for leave to 

appeal in the Supreme Court, MCR 7.305(C)(2), the trial court shall commence resentencing 

proceedings, and those proceedings shall be given priority on remand until they are concluded. The 

parties shall promptly file with this Court a copy of all papers filed on remand. Within seven days after 

entry, appellant shall file with this Court a copy of the judgment of sentence entered on remand. The 

transcript of all proceedings on remand shall be prepared and filed within 21 days after completion of 

the proceedings.

Either party may file a supplemental brief pertaining to the issues raised on remand 

within 21 days after entry of the trial court’s order deciding the matter or 21 days after the transcript of 

the hearing is filed, whichever is later. The responsive party may file a supplemental brief in reply. 

Alternatively, the parties may file a stipulation to dismiss this appeal.

/s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens

March 22, 2018