If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-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UNPUBLISHED

November 21, 2023

v No. 357004

Muskegon Circuit Court

MICHAEL PAUL PARNELL, LC No. 02-047101-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v No. 357005

Muskegon Circuit Court

MICHAEL PAUL PARNELL, LC No. 02-048012-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

ON REMAND

Before: MURRAY, P.J., and O’BRIEN and REDFORD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

These consolidated cases return to this Court following a remand from our Supreme Court. 

In Docket No. 357004, defendant was convicted of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSCIV) (sexual contact by force or coercion), resisting and obstructing a police officer, and carrying a 

concealed weapon (CCW). He was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to prison terms 

of 10 to 15 years for CSC-IV, 2 to 15 years for resisting and obstructing, and life with the 

possibility of parole for CCW. In Docket No. 357005, defendant was convicted of retaliation 

against a witness, and sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. On appeal to 

this Court, defendant argued that his sentences violated the principle of proportionality. This Court 

rejected that argument, reasoning that the principle of proportionality did not apply to the 
-2-

sentencing of habitual offenders. People v Parnell, unpublished per curiam opinion, issued 

September 15, 2022 (Docket Nos. 357004 and 357005), pp 9-10. Our Supreme Court vacated that 

portion of the opinion and remanded to this Court “for consideration of the defendant’s challenge 

to the proportionality of his departure sentences under the standard set forth in People v 

Steanhouse, 500 Mich 453, 476; 902 NW2d 327 (2017).” People v Parnell, ___ Mich ___; 994 

NW2d 508 (2023). Doing so, we again affirm defendant’s sentences.

I. BACKGROUND

This Court previously explained the factual background of defendant’s convictions on 

appeal as follows:

Defendant’s convictions in Docket No. 357004 arise from a sexual assault 

that occurred on February 13, 2002, in Muskegon, Michigan. Defendant, who was 

riding a bicycle, grabbed and squeezed the buttocks of the victim, KF, as she walked 

toward her car. KF called 911 and provided a description of defendant and his bike 

to the dispatcher. Following a foot chase and struggle, defendant was arrested and 

handcuffed. A subsequent search revealed that defendant was carrying a knife. A

police officer also found that defendant had pantyhose with the legs cut off and tied 

together. The officer testified that he had seen pantyhose in that condition used as 

a mask. Following a two-day trial, the jury found defendant guilty of CSC-IV, 

resisting a police officer, and CCW.

Defendant’s [witness-retaliation] conviction in Docket No. 357005 arises 

from a previous armed-robbery conviction. On February 4, 2002, defendant held 

12-year-old CB at knifepoint in a Kmart bathroom stall and ordered her to remove 

her underwear. Defendant unzipped his pants, placed his groin onto CB’s groin, 

and stuck his tongue down her throat. When he left, he took CB’s underwear and 

threatened to kill her if she screamed or told anyone what had happened. CB 

testified about the incident at a trial held in June 2002, after which defendant was 

convicted of armed robbery, MCL 750.529, and sentenced as a fourth-offense 

habitual offender to 45 to 100 years’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed that 

conviction, and while his appeal was pending, CB received a letter in the mail at 

her home where she lived with her grandmother. The letter, which was addressed 

to CB and signed by defendant, contained graphic threats to rape, torture, and 

murder CB unless she recanted her testimony against defendant. The letter also 

contained graphic hand-drawn pictures. Three of defendant’s fingerprints were 

discovered on the letter. On the basis of this letter, a jury convicted defendant of 

[retaliating against a witness]. [Parnell, unpub op at 2.]

Defendant was sentenced for his convictions in Docket Nos. 357004 and 357005 at a single 

sentencing hearing. For defendant’s CCW convictions, the guidelines were scored at 19 to 76 

months, and the guidelines for his witness-retaliation conviction was scored at 43 to 152 months. 

When sentencing defendant, the trial court departed from the guidelines range for both convictions, 

explaining:
-3-

I do not believe the guidelines give sufficient weight to the nature of your 

prior record and the nature of these offenses, and I feel that the totality and 

cumulative effect of the following factors constitute substantial and compelling 

reasons for an upward departure.

I note you have prior juvenile adjudications for second-degree criminal 

sexual conduct where you grabbed a neighborhood girl while she was outside; 

second-degree criminal sexual conduct in which you ran up to a Department of 

Social-Service worker in a parking lot and grabbed her breast. While you were on 

juvenile probation, you had probation violation convictions for two counts of 

indecent behavior where . . . apparently you grabbed a woman from behind and said 

you want some blank and used the slang term for the female sex organs. You also 

entered a woman’s shower at the YMCA and observed a woman taking a shower.

As an adult, you have convictions for fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct 

in which you grabbed a woman from behind and grabbed her pubic area. You have 

a conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon and carrying a concealed weapon 

which was done 3-l/2 months after your discharge from prison on the fourth-degree 

criminal sexual conduct conviction where you served the maximum. In that case, 

a woman was in a toilet stall in a bathroom, a women’s bathroom, and as she was 

leaving, you put the blade of the knife to her throat, told her you wanted to kill her.

After you served the maximum on the assault with a dangerous weapon and 

carrying a concealed weapon convictions—that is, the maximum sentence in 

prison—on the same day you were released, you committed an armed robbery in 

the K-Mart bathroom in which you went in the women’s bathroom, put a knife in 

the face of a 13-year-old girl [CB], said if she screamed you would kill her, forced 

the girl to take off her pants and underwear, you unzipped your pants, put your 

groin to her groin, stuck your tongue in her mouth and down her throat, stole her 

underwear and threatened to kill her if she screamed or if she told.

I note in your previous incarcerations, you had two major misconducts for 

threatening behavior. On your current incarceration, you have one major 

misconduct for threatening behavior. In the instant conviction for fourth-degree 

criminal sexual conduct, you grabbed the buttock of a 19-year-o1d woman while 

she was walking on a public street. Although you did not display a knife, you were 

carrying a knife.

As to the conviction here of retaliating against a witness, this was a threat 

to the witness in the armed robbery case which occurred while you were in prison. 

I won’t repeat the language of the letter. That’s on the record from the trial, but the 

threat was done in an unusually perverse, vile, and foul language, as well as 

unusually perverse, vile, and foul imagery as to what you were going to do to her 

involving her rape, her death, and her torture of this 13-year-old witness.

The total of all this, Mr. Parnell, is that you’re simply out of control, and I 

believe there are substantial and compelling reasons to exceed the guidelines, and 
-4-

I will exceed the guidelines. For those reasons, I believe that deterrence, 

disciplining the offender, and protection of the public are by far the more important 

variables in sentencing.

The court restated its reasoning in a written departure evaluation form:

I sentenced above the guidelines because I did not believe the guidelines 

gave sufficient weight to the totality of the following factors: (1) juvenile 

adjudications for two separate offenses of second degree criminal sexual conduct, 

which involved assaulting two different women in public places; (2) two juvenile 

court probation violation charges involving indecent behavior and preying on 

women; (3) and adult 4th degree criminal sexual conduct conviction involving a 

woman in a public area; (4) after serving the maximum sentence on the latter 

charge[,] defendant was out of prison for 31⁄2 months and was convicted of assault 

with a dangerous weapon and carrying a concealed weapon involving assaulting 

and threatening to kill a woman in a women’s bathroom after she came out of the 

toilet stall; (5) on the day defendant was released from prison after serving the 

maximum on the latter two offenses, defendant committed an armed robbery of a 

13-year old girl in the women’s restroom of K-mart in which he held a knife to her 

face, threatened to kill her, forced her to disrobe from the waist down, and stole her 

underpants; (6) while in prison on the armed robbery charge, defendant sent a letter 

to the 13-year old victim in which he threatened to kill her, rape her, and torture 

her, using very graphic imagery and foul, perverse language in the letter. Thus, I 

felt that the maximum sentence possible should be imposed on the instant 

convictions of retaliation against a witness, 4th felony offense; carrying a concealed 

weapon, 4th felony offense, and 4th degree CSC, 4th felony offense. I also weighed 

that defendant had two major misconducts for threatening behavior in a previous 

prison sentence and one major misconducts for threatening behavior in his present 

prison sentence.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“This Court reviews the proportionality of a trial court’s sentence for an abuse of 

discretion.” People v Lydic, 335 Mich App 486, 500; 967 NW2d 847 (2021) (quotation marks and 

citation omitted). “A given sentence constitutes an abuse of discretion if that sentence violates the 

principle of proportionality . . . .” People v Lowrey, 258 Mich App 167, 172; 673 NW2d 107 

(2003).

III. DISCUSSION

The principle of proportionality “requires sentences imposed by the trial court to be 

proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender.” 

People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 636; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). “The concept of proportionality is 

central to the Eighth Amendment,” Graham v Florida, 560 US 48, 59; 130 S Ct 2011; 176 L Ed 

2d 825 (2010), “which guarantees individuals the right not to be subjected to excessive sanctions,” 

Roper v Simmons, 543 US 551, 560; 125 S Ct 1183; 161 L Ed 2d 1 (2005). “That right . . . ‘flows 
-5-

from the basic “precept of justice that punishment for crime should be graduated and 

proportioned” ’ to both the offender and the offense.” Miller v Alabama, 567 US 460, 469; 132 S 

Ct 2455; 183 L Ed 2d 407 (2012), quoting Roper, 543 US at 560, quoting Weems v United States, 

217 US 349, 367; 30 S Ct 544; 54 L Ed 793 (1910). The sentencing guidelines establish a range 

of possible minimum sentences as “a function of the seriousness of the crime and of the defendant’s 

criminal history.” People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247, 264; 666 NW2d 231 (2003).

Milbourn observed that “[j]ust as the [judicial sentencing] guidelines may not be a perfect 

embodiment of the principle of proportionality, so too may a sentence within the guidelines be 

disproportionately severe or lenient.” Milbourn, 435 Mich at 611. Accordingly, a court imposing 

a sentence and an appellate court reviewing a sentence must be mindful that “the key test is whether 

the sentence is proportionate to the seriousness of the matter, not whether it departs from or adheres 

to the guidelines’ recommended range.” Id. Accord Steanhouse, 500 Mich at 472. Nonetheless, 

because the extent of possible sentences for the CCW and retaliation-against-a-witness convictions 

is sizeable, considering the guidelines is a useful frame of reference when considering whether a 

sentence comports with the principle of proportionality. Dixon-Bey, 321 Mich App at 531.

In his brief on appeal, defendant acknowledged that the trial court advanced reasons for 

departing from the sentencing guidelines, but contended that the court never addressed why the 

extent of the departure was proportionate to his circumstances or the circumstances surrounding 

the offenses. While defendant is correct that the trial court did not draw any distinction in its 

reasoning between the need to depart and the extent of the departure, both subjects are inherent in 

the court’s oral and written explanations.

When defendant was originally sentenced, the trial court was required to employ the 

substantial-and-compelling-reason test of the then-current version of MCL 769.34(3).1 In the 

ensuing years, our Supreme Court in Lockridge struck down that test and replaced it with the 

principle-of-proportionality standard articulated in Milbourn. Lockridge, 498 Mich at 391. 

Following Lockridge, appellate courts reviewing sentencing like defendant’s—that is, those in 

which the trial court found substantial and compelling reasons to depart from the sentencing 

guidelines—“engage[] in reasonableness review for an abuse of discretion informed by the 

‘principle of proportionality’ standard.” Steanhouse, 500 Mich at 476.

“[T]he ultimate authority to provide for penalties for criminal offenses is constitutionally 

vested in the Legislature.” People v Hedgwood, 465 Mich 432, 436; 636 NW2d 127 (2001). The 

Legislature’s exercise of that authority is effectuated in various provisions throughout statutory 

law, notably in the Penal Code2and the Code of Criminal Procedure,3including the sentencing 

guidelines. The principle of proportionality animates the Legislature’s enactment of mandatory 

 

1

“A court may depart from the appropriate sentence range established under the sentencing 

guidelines set forth in chapter XVII if the court has a substantial and compelling reason for that 

departure and states on the record the reasons for departure. . . .” MCL 769.34(3), 2002 PA 666.

2 MCL 750.1 et seq.

3 MCL 760.1 et seq.
-6-

sentences for some crimes, minimum and maximum sentences for others, and establishing the 

sentencing guidelines. Babcock, 469 Mich at 263. “The Legislature adopted these guidelines 

intending to reduce unjustified disparities in sentencing.” Id. at 267 n 21. Accord People v Garza, 

469 Mich 431, 434-435; 670 NW2d 662 (2003). Additionally, the Legislature has provided 

maximum possible sentences for persons convicted of CCW and witness retaliation. In MCL 

750.227(3), the Legislature provided that an individual convicted of CCW may be imprisoned for 

not more than five years. In MCL 750.122(8), the Legislature provided that an individual “who 

retaliates, attempts to retaliate, or threatens to retaliate against another person for having been a 

witness in an official proceeding is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more 

than 10 years.” These maximums are expressions of the Legislature’s determination of the proper 

punishment for each offense.

However, the Legislature’s thinking on criminal sentencing is also expressed in MCL 

769.12, where it has provided for “escalating penalties for offenders who are repeatedly convicted 

of felonies.” People v Gardner, 482 Mich 41, 44; 753 NW2d 78 (2008). Defendant was sentenced 

as a fourth-offense habitual offender, and MCL 769.12(1)(b) provides that where the maximum 

term of imprisonment for a first conviction of the subsequent felony is 5 years or more, as is the 

case here, a court may sentence the individual convicted of the subsequent felony “to imprisonment 

for life or for a lesser number of years.” That the range of possible sentences is expansive is a 

recognition of the considerable number of possible distinctive contexts that a sentencing court can

be presented with when dealing with recidivist offenders.

Some factors pertinent to an appellate court considering whether the guidelines adequately 

reflect relevant aggravating factors, and thus reflect a proportionate sentence range, include “(1) 

whether the guidelines accurately reflect the seriousness of the crime; (2) factors not considered 

by the guidelines; and (3) factors considered by the guidelines but given inadequate weight.” 

People v Dixon-Bey, 321 Mich App 490, 525; 909 NW2d 458 (2017) (citations omitted).

Here, the guidelines encapsulated a number of relevant aggravating factors. PRV 1 was 

scored 25 points for defendant’s 2002 armed-robbery conviction (a class A crime). MCL 777.16y; 

MCL 777.51(1)(c). PRV 2 was scored 20 points for defendant’s 1998 conviction of assault with 

a dangerous weapon (a class F crime) and CCW (a class E crime), and his 1995 CSC-IV conviction 

(a class G crime). MCL 777.16d; MCL 777.16m; MCL 777.16y; MCL 777.52(1)(b). PRV 3 was 

scored 25 points for defendant’s two prior juvenile adjudications for CSC-II (a class C crime). 

MCL 777.16y; MCL 777.53(1)(b). With respect to his retaliation-against-a-witness conviction, 

PRV 6 was scored 20 points because defendant was serving his armed-robbery sentence when the 

offense was committed. MCL 777.56(1)(a). And PRV 7 was scored 20 points because defendant 

“has two or more subsequent or concurrent convictions.” MCL 777.57(1)(a).

Further, in general, the circumstances of the criminal activity underlying the CCW and 

witness-retaliation convictions are reflected in the scoring of the offense variables. For both 

convictions, OV 13 was scored 25 points because the respective offenses were part of “a pattern 

of felonious criminal activity involving 3 or more crimes against a person.” MCL 777.43(1)(c). 

For the CCW conviction, OV 9 was scored 10 points because between two and nine individuals 

were put in danger by a folding knife with an almost 7-inch blade discovered on defendant by 

police during a search incident to arrest. MCL 777.39(1)(c). Regarding the witness-retaliation 

conviction, the contents of the letter defendant sent to CB informed the scoring of OVs 4, 7, 10, 
-7-

and 19. OV 4 was scored 10 points for the psychological injury inflicted on CB. MCL 

777.34(1)(a). OV 7 was scored 50 points for the sadistic psychological abuse inflicted by the 

egregious, violent, and vile language and imagery used by defendant in the letter. And defendant 

authoring and sending the letter to a then-13-year-old girl constitutes purposeful, predatory 

conduct aimed at her in order to exploit her vulnerability. MCL 777.40(1)(a). Finally, the threats 

of violence that punctuate the letter are accounted for in the 15 points scored for OV 19. MCL 

777.49(b).

Based on the foregoing, the guidelines clearly accounted for a number of relevant factors 

specific to defendant’s offenses and his history. Nevertheless, other relevant circumstances were

not accounted for in the guideline scores. For example, the PRV score does not account for

defendant’s two probation violations for indecent behavior. Additionally, the guidelines do not 

illustrate the brazenness of defendant’s criminal actions. All of defendant’s sexual misbehavior 

(criminally charged or not) occurred in areas open to the public. Some occurred in locations 

designated for women only, particularly areas where the women were especially vulnerable by the 

location’s function and semi-isolated configuration (for example, a bathroom or a shower).

Moreover, defendant’s criminal history evidences an escalation in violence. As a juvenile, 

he abruptly grabbed several women, sometimes from behind. On one occasion he told the woman, 

“I want some pussy.” His first felony conviction as an adult was based on his having approached 

a woman from behind and “grabbing he in her pubic area.” However, his second adult felony 

conviction stemmed from his 1997 attack on a woman while brandishing a knife. Defendant 

confronted the woman as she exited a bathroom stall. When the victim tried to leave, defendant 

grabbed her arm and put the point of the blade against her throat. She asked him what he wanted, 

and he stated that he just wanted to kill her. Defendant again used a knife when attacking CB four 

years later. And this time, the victim was injured by the knife.

Additionally, the letter defendant sent to CB shows, at the very least, that defendant has no 

hesitancy in making shocking and appalling threats of violence. Defendant repeatedly threatened 

to rape, torture, and kill then-13-year-old CB. He described sexually assaulting her with a baseball 

bat. Less than one year after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, he claimed to be a terrorist, 

pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and spoke of an intent to kill the President. This might 

be seen by an adult as pretentious hyperbole, but his target was a 13-year-old girl that he had held 

at knife point.

There is also the issue of timing. Defendant committed assault with a deadly weapon 

roughly three months after his release from prison for his first CSC-IV conviction. He assaulted 

CB the same day he was released from prison for his first CCW conviction. And he committed 

the crime of witness retaliation while in the first months of his 45- to 100-year prison term for 

armed robbery. This evidences the ineffectiveness of any past efforts at rehabilitation, and calls 

into serious question his devotion to rehabilitation and the likelihood it will ever succeed.

In sum, the extent of the departures in this case are undeniably substantial, and other courts 

might have imposed different sentences under these same circumstances, but this does not mean 

that the sentences violated the principle of proportionality. The trial court articulated appropriate 

reasons for why such severe sentences were warranted in this case, and in doing so it considered 

both the nature of the offenses and the background of defendant. Accordingly, the trial court’s 
-8-

decision to sentence defendant to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for his witnessretaliation and CCW convictions was not outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes 

because defendant’s sentences were consistent with the principle of proportionality.4

Affirmed.

/s/ Christopher M. Murray

/s/ Colleen A. O’Brien

/s/ James Robert Redford

 

4

In a supplemental brief, defendant asserted that, on the basis of People v Parks, 510 Mich 225; 

987 NW2d 161 (2022), this Court should conclude that defendant’s sentences were 

disproportionate based on defendant’s assertion that he lives with an intellectual disability. 

Defendant’s reliance on Parks is inapposite. Parks addressed the imposition of mandatory lifewithout-parole sentences on 18-year-old defendants. Defendant was older than 18 when he 

committed the crimes at issue, and he was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole, not 

mandatory life without parole. We decline defendant’s invitation to broaden Parks’ holding and 

apply it outside of 18-year-old defendants sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility 

of parole.