Opinion ID: 843881
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the need for resentencing

Text: The final issue in this case concerns whether resentencing was warranted because the second trial judge indicated that he would have imposed the same sentence regardless of the sentencing error. [4] In Francisco, this Court stated that [r]esentencing is also not required where the trial court has clearly indicated that it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of the scoring error and the sentence falls within the appropriate guidelines range. Id. at 89 n. 8, 711 N.W.2d 44, citing People v. Mutchie, 468 Mich. 50, 51, 658 N.W.2d 154 (2003). In Francisco, the trial court had not indicated that it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of the scoring error. Therefore, the above-quoted language from Francisco is dictum, a statement not necessary for the holding of the case. However, this Court did make a similar statement in Mutchie. In Mutchie, the sentencing court departed from the sentencing guidelines range. After an OV scoring error was discovered, the trial court, at a hearing on the defendant's motion for resentencing, indicated that it would have given the same sentence regardless of the error. This Court approved the Court of Appeals statement that the scoring issue was moot. Even had there been error, resentencing was not warranted given the trial court's remarks that it would have imposed the same sentence. Mutchie, supra at 51, 658 N.W.2d 154. There is one important factual distinction between this case and Mutchie. In Mutchie, the same sentencing judge imposed the initial sentence and refused to alter it after having been shown the guidelines error. In this case, Judge H. David Soet sentenced defendant. Nearly 4 ½ years later, Judge James Redford, who had replaced Judge Soet, denied defendant's motion for relief from judgment, indicating that he would impose the same sentence. Therefore, the initial sentencing judge did not indicate that he would have imposed the same sentence. Presumably, had he been given the correct guidelines range, he would have sentenced defendant near the bottom of the range. Also, Judge Redford did not consider Judge Soet's considered view about where on the range defendant should be sentenced. Accordingly, because both good cause and actual prejudice exist and the case is distinguishable from Mutchie, I believe this Court should remand it to the circuit court for resentencing. MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, J., joins the statement of MARILYN J. KELLY, J. MARKMAN, J., dissents and states as follows: I would remand to the circuit court for resentencing. Where the original sentencing judge sentenced defendant to a term of imprisonment less than 7 percent above the bottom of the guideline range and where, because of an error in scoring, such sentence would now be 28 percent above the bottom of the correct guideline range, I believe that defendant is entitled to be resentenced. People v. Francisco, 474 Mich. 82, 711 N.W.2d 44 (2006). The need for resentencing is not mitigated, in my judgment, by the fact that a substitute sentencing judge has indicated in an order denying relief from judgment that, even if the guidelines were correctly scored, this Court on resentencing would have imposed the identical sentence. Before it can be concluded that the original sentencing judge was genuinely determined to sentence defendant to a term of precisely 288 monthsnot with standing what the correct high and low ends of the guideline range aredefendant is entitled to a new sentencing hearing. If, after such hearing, the new sentencing judge is persuaded that the original sentencing judge would have sentenced defendant to a term of 288 monthsregardless of the high and low ends of the guideline rangeor otherwise decides that 288 months is the proper sentence, then so be it.