Case Name: PEOPLE v. THOMASON
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1985-02-12
Citations: 141 Mich. App. 578
Docket Number: Docket No. 77097
Parties: PEOPLE v THOMASON
Judges: Before: Cynar, P.J., and M. J. Kelly and R. L. Evans, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 141
Pages: 578–584

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v THOMASON
Docket No. 77097.
Submitted October 2, 1984, at Lansing. —
Decided February 12, 1985.
Defendant, Timothy Thomason, pled guilty in the Ingham Circuit Court to armed robbery. The trial court, Thomas L. Brown, J., sentenced the defendant to from 84 months to 168 months imprisonment. Defendant appeals alleging that he must be resentenced because of the trial court’s alleged improper use of the Michigan Sentencing Guidelines in determining defendant’s sentence. Held:
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning defendant’s sentence. The trial court stated on the record the reasons for the sentence imposed. Under the circumstances of this case, the Court of Appeals did not find that its conscience was shocked by the sentence imposed.
Affirmed.
R. L. Evans, J., dissented and noted his belief that under the circumstances of this case, where defendant’s sentence was based on an inaccurate reading of the Sentencing Guidelines standards, it is appropriate to vacate the sentence of the trial court and remand the case for resentencing. He would hold that a sentence based upon a significantly erroneous application of the Sentencing Guidelines standards violates due process and requires resentencing. He noted his belief that the sentencing judge clearly erred in assigning one point for Offense Variable 2.
Opinion of the Court
1. Criminal Law — Sentencing — Sentencing Guidelines.
Use of the Michigan Sentencing Guidelines by the judges of the circuit courts and the Recorder’s Court of Detroit is mandatory beginning March 1, 1984 (Administrative Order No. 1984-1).
2. Criminal Law — Appeal — Sentencing.
The Court of Appeals may review a criminal defendant’s sentence to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in fashioning the defendant’s sentence and may affirm a sentence which does not shock the conscience of the Court of Appeals.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1, 4, 5] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 525 et seq.
[2] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error §§ 772, 938.
[3] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 527, 580.
Dissent by R. L. Evans, J.
3. Criminal Law — Sentencing.
A sentence based on inaccurate information violates due process and entitles the defendant to a resentencing.
4. Criminal Law — Sentencing — Sentencing Guidelines.
A sentence based upon a signiñcantly erroneous application of the Michigan Sentencing Guidelines standards violates due process and entitles the defendant to resentencing.
5. Criminal Law — Sentencing — Sentencing Guidelines — Appeal.
A sentencing judge who elects to consult the Michigan Sentencing Guidelines during such time as the use of the guidelines is permitted but not mandated is not free to impose a sentence based upon a signiñcantly inaccurate application of the sentencing standards.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Louis J. Caruso, Solicitor General, Peter D. Houk, Prosecuting Attorney, and Robert B. Ebersole, Chief Appellate Attorney, for the people.
State Appellate Defender (by Sheila N. Robertson, Managing Attorney, Special Unit, Pleas/Early Releases, and Rafael Villarruel, Research Attorney, for defendant on appeal.
Before: Cynar, P.J., and M. J. Kelly and R. L. Evans, JJ.
Recorder’s Court judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Defendant pled guilty to armed robbery, MCL 750.529; MSA 28.797, on December 23, 1983. Defendant was sentenced to from 84 months to 168 months in prison. Defendant appeals from his sentence to this Court as of right.
Defendant was convicted after the Michigan Supreme Court's decision in People v Coles, 417 Mich 523; 339 NW2d 440 (1983). His sentence is therefore reviewable by this Court. Coles, supra, p 551.
At sentencing, the trial court used the Michigan Sentencing Guidelines even though their use did not become mandatory until March 1, 1984. See, Administrative Order No 1984-1, 418 Mich xxiv (1984). After some discussion about the proper point total to be used in applying the guidelines, the trial court sentenced defendant. The trial court articulated the reasons for the sentence it was imposing on the record. Defendant now contends that the trial court abused its discretion by assigning the wrong number of points for Offense Variable 2 under the robbery heading. While we can see from the record that there was a difference of opinion between defense counsel and the court about the proper number of points to be assigned, we decline to pass on that question. The only issue before us is the question of whether the trial court abused its discretion in fashioning defendant's sentence. We note that the trial court stated on the record the reasons for the sentence imposed. We cannot say that under the circumstances of this case the conscience of the reviewing Court is shocked. Defendant's sentence is affirmed.
Affirmed.