-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Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 13, 2016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: M URRAY , P.J., and H OEKSTRA and B ECKERING , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. Defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of armed robbe ry, MCL 750.529; one count of felon in possession of a firearm, MCL 750.224f; and on e count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), sec ond offense, MCL 750.227b. The trial court initially sentenced defendant in January of 201 2. Following defendant’s appeal, defendant’s convictions were affi rmed, but the Supreme Court re manded 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). Def endant 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 h is sentence reviewed for reasonableness under Lockridge

, and he maintains that resenten cing is again required because defendant’s concurrent 30-year minimum sentences for each of hi s armed robbery convictions are unreasonable, despite the fact that defendant was sentenced within the advisory minimum sentence guidelines range. Notably, although defendant seeks r esentencing, he does not contend that the trial court relied on inaccurate information when dete rmining defendant’s sentence and he does not challenge the scoring of any OV or prior record var iable (PRV). Further, there is no dispute that defendant’s 30-year minimum sentence for each arme d robbery conviction is within the recalculated guidelines range of 171 to 570 months. Moreov er, while defendant relies on-2- Lockridge , he does not claim that any of his OV scores were based on jud icially found facts and he does not request a Crosby 1 remand. Instead, defendant’s only claim is that he should be resentenced because the trial court imposed an unreasonable sen tence in light of defendant’s personal characteristics and the c ircumstances of the offense. This argument is without merit.

In Lockridge

, 498 Mich at 364-365, the Michigan Supreme Court held that Michi gan’s sentencing guidelines are adviso ry and that a departure from th e recommended minimum guidelines range does not requir e the sentencing court to artic ulate a substantial and compelling reason, remedying the constitution al violation presented by req uiring mandatory minimum sentences based on judicial fact -finding. While rendering the guidelines advisory, Lockridge endeavored “[t]o preserve as much as possible the legislative i ntent 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 ap pellate 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 sent encing 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, MC L 769.34(10) remains valid, and “[w]here a trial court does not depart from the recommended min imum 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).