Opinion ID: 2070377
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: PEOPLE v BRODEN

Text: The defendant, Lora Broden, was charged with second-degree murder, MCL 750.317; MSA 28.549. On March 23, 1984, Broden pled guilty to the charged offense and admitted to fatally stabbing the victim during an argument on February 10, 1984. Broden was on parole for manslaughter at the time of the offense. Broden was sentenced on April 4, 1984, to a term of imprisonment of not less than sixteen years nor more than thirty years. This too was a sentence within the guidelines which recommended a minimum sentence range of sixteen years to life imprisonment. With the exception of a stray comment early in the sentencing proceeding (we've got to protect ourselves), the sentencing judge's only explanation for this sentence was the brief statement, I'm following the guidelines. Broden filed a claim of appeal in the Court of Appeals. The prosecutor answered with a motion to affirm. In response to that motion, the Court of Appeals issued an order remanding the case to the trial court, directing the trial judge to state on the record his reasons for imposing the sentence. At a hearing which took place in the trial court on September 6, 1984, the sentencing judge stated: Okay. Well counsel, I'm looking at the sentencing guidelines form. This thing is entitled sentencing guidelines report. That is the face sheet we get on it. It says guidelines sentencing for this particular lady, 192 months to life. Then below it says actual sentence. I imposed 192 month [sic]. Then it says departure above or below. Please specify any reasons. If I followed the guidelines it doesn't provide for me to say anything.    Well [Assistant Prosecutor] Wilson, I don't want to clutter the record by saying it but you know what I was thinking. This was the second homicide conviction.    That's what it is. I followed the guidelines exactly. I told her at the time of sentencing I was following the guidelines.    I think that was sufficient reason to explain her sentence to her and the attorney had an opportunity to review that before I passed sentence. The Court of Appeals then decided the merits of Broden's appeal and affirmed her conviction, but again remanded the matter to the trial court, directing it to explain the reasons for the sentence in terms other than a mere reference to the guidelines. The Court of Appeals then certified that its decision in Broden conflicted with its prior decision in Murray. [6] We granted the prosecutor's application for leave to appeal before the matter was remanded. [7]