Opinion ID: 838951
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the trial court's initial burden to articulate substantial and compelling reasons for departure

Text: Under MCL 769.34(3), a minimum sentence that departs from the sentencing guidelines recommendation requires a substantial and compelling reason articulated on the record. In interpreting this statutory requirement, the Court has concluded that the reasons relied on must be objective and verifiable. They must be of considerable worth in determining the length of the sentence and should keenly or irresistibly grab the court's attention. [9] Substantial and compelling reasons for departure exist only in exceptional cases. [10] In determining whether a sufficient basis exists to justify a departure, the principle of proportionality ... defines the standard against which the allegedly substantial and compelling reasons in support of departure are to be assessed. [11] For a departure to be justified, the minimum sentence imposed must be proportionate to the defendant's conduct and prior criminal history. [12] The trial court may not base a departure on an offense characteristic or offender characteristic already taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence range unless the court finds from the facts contained in the court record, including the presentence investigation report, that the characteristic has been given inadequate or disproportionate weight. [13] On appeal, courts review the reasons given for a departure for clear error. [14] The conclusion that a reason is objective and verifiable is reviewed as a matter of law. [15] Whether the reasons given are substantial and compelling enough to justify the departure is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, as is the amount of the departure. [16] A trial court abuses its discretion if the minimum sentence imposed falls outside the range of principled outcomes. [17] Under MCL 769.34(7), the court must advise a defendant that he or she may seek appellate review of a sentence that is more severe than the guidelines recommendation. There is no preservation requirement for review of such a sentence. [18] In this case, the trial judge articulated the reasons for his departure. In particular, he referred to the 15-month period over which the serial abuse occurred. The fact that defendant abused the victim for more than a year was not reflected in the guidelines. That sexual abuse occurred over a long period is an objective and verifiable reason for departure. The abuse in this case was not something that was completed quickly. For more than a year, the victim undoubtedly suffered psychological stress from the realization that defendant might abuse her again and again. This fact is of considerable worth in determining defendant's minimum sentence. Also, it is a fact that does not exist in all criminal sexual conduct cases. Hence, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in concluding that the long period of abuse provided a substantial and compelling reason for departure. The judge also relied on the fact that defendant threatened to retaliate by evicting the victim and her family if she disclosed to anyone his predatory sexual behavior. This is objective and verifiable because the threat was external to the minds of those involved and could be confirmed on the record. The judge did not abuse his discretion in concluding that this fact provided a substantial and compelling reason to depart. It was not considered in the guidelines, and making such a threat to a child could cause significant psychological anguish. It forced the child to choose between reporting the defendant's repeated criminal assaults and protecting her family from homelessness. The threat was distinct enough to actively and strongly draw the judge's attention. The judge additionally relied on the gynecological examination the victim underwent as a result of defendant's sexual abuse. Defendant contends that such examinations are to be expected when sexual abuse has been alleged and cannot constitute a substantial and compelling basis for departure. Defendant is correct that commonplace repercussions of criminal activity do not support departures, which may be made only in exceptional cases. [19] This is because the sentencing guidelines are designed to promote uniformity in criminal sentencing by `ensur[ing] that offenders with similar offense and offender characteristics receive substantially similar sentences.' [20] Hence, we agree that this repercussion of criminal sexual conduct would not generally represent such a wide deviation from the norm that a departure could be premised on it. However, under the unique circumstances of this case, the trial judge's conclusion that the gynecological examination provided a substantial and compelling reason for departure was not an abuse of discretion. The evidence indicates that the examination added considerably to the victim's trauma. This trauma was demonstrated by the victim's testimony that the examination was uncomfortable and embarrassing. More significantly, it was demonstrated by her behavior during the examination. Under these circumstances, the judge did not abuse his discretion in concluding that this repercussion of defendant's behavior was of considerable worth in determining the length of defendant's minimum sentence. [21] By citing these facts that justified departure in this case, the trial judge met the initial burden of articulation.