-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

UNPUBLISHED 

September 13, 2016 

v No. 327633 

Kent Circuit Court 

MELVIN JAMES MARSHALL, LC No. 11-007667-FC 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Before: MURRAY, P.J., and HOEKSTRA and BECKERING, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of armed robbery, MCL 750.529; one 

count of felon in possession of a firearm, MCL 750.224f; and one count of possession of a 

firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), second offense, MCL 750.227b. 

The trial court initially sentenced defendant in January of 2012. Following defendant’s appeal, 

defendant’s convictions were affirmed, but the Supreme Court remanded defendant’s case for 

resentencing due to an error in the scoring of offense variable (OV) 13. People v Marshall, 497 

Mich 986; 861 NW2d 47 (2015). Defendant was resentenced in the trial court on April 28, 2015 

as a fourth-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.12, to 30 to 70 years’ imprisonment for each of 

his armed robbery convictions, 5 to 20 years’ imprisonment for his felon-in-possession 

conviction, and five years’ imprisonment for his felony-firearm conviction. Defendant now 

appeals his resentencing as of right. Because defendant is not entitled to resentencing under 

People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358; 870 NW2d 502 (2015), we affirm. 

 In this appeal, defendant argues that he is entitled to have his sentence reviewed for 

reasonableness under Lockridge, and he maintains that resentencing is again required because 

defendant’s concurrent 30-year minimum sentences for each of his armed robbery convictions 

are unreasonable, despite the fact that defendant was sentenced within the advisory minimum 

sentence guidelines range. Notably, although defendant seeks resentencing, he does not contend 

that the trial court relied on inaccurate information when determining defendant’s sentence and 

he does not challenge the scoring of any OV or prior record variable (PRV). Further, there is no 

dispute that defendant’s 30-year minimum sentence for each armed robbery conviction is within 

the recalculated guidelines range of 171 to 570 months. Moreover, while defendant relies on 
-2- 

Lockridge, he does not claim that any of his OV scores were based on judicially found facts and 

he does not request a Crosby1

 remand. Instead, defendant’s only claim is that he should be 

resentenced because the trial court imposed an unreasonable sentence in light of defendant’s 

personal characteristics and the circumstances of the offense. This argument is without merit. 

 In Lockridge, 498 Mich at 364-365, the Michigan Supreme Court held that Michigan’s 

sentencing guidelines are advisory and that a departure from the recommended minimum 

guidelines range does not require the sentencing court to articulate a substantial and compelling 

reason, remedying the constitutional violation presented by requiring mandatory minimum 

sentences based on judicial fact-finding. While rendering the guidelines advisory, Lockridge

endeavored “[t]o preserve as much as possible the legislative intent in enacting the guidelines,” 

and for this reason the sentencing court must still “determine the applicable guidelines range and 

take it into account when imposing a sentence.” Id. at 365, 391-392. Following Lockridge, “[a] 

sentence that departs from the applicable guidelines range will be reviewed by an appellate court 

for reasonableness.” Id. at 392 (emphasis added). 

 In comparison, under MCL 769.34(10), “[i]f a minimum sentence is within the 

appropriate guidelines sentence range, the court of appeals shall affirm that sentence and shall 

not remand for resentencing absent an error in scoring the sentencing guidelines or inaccurate 

information relied upon in determining the defendant’s sentence” (emphasis added). Since 

Lockridge was decided, this Court has determined that “Lockridge did not alter or diminish MCL 

769.34(10) . . . .” People v Schrauben, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No. 

323170, issued January 26, 2016); slip op at 6 n 1. Rather, MCL 769.34(10) remains valid, and 

“[w]here a trial court does not depart from the recommended minimum sentencing range, the 

minimum sentence must be affirmed unless there was an error in scoring or the trial court relied 

on inaccurate information.” Schrauben, slip op at 6. 

 Consequently, in this case, because defendant’s sentences were within the applicable 

minimum sentence range and there is no challenge to the scoring of the guidelines or the 

accuracy of the information used by the trial court, defendant’s sentence must be affirmed. Id., 

slip op at 6-7; MCL 769.34(10). 

 Affirmed. 

/s/ Christopher M. Murray 

/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra 

/s/ Jane M. Beckering 

 

1 United States v Crosby, 397 F3d 103 (CA 2 2005).