Court Opinion

ID: 9378371
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-10 06:05:27.260052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:20.735925
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                  revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                           STATE OF MICHIGAN

                            COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,                                       UNPUBLISHED
                                                                       March 9, 2023
               Plaintiff-Appellee,

v                                                                      No. 359054
                                                                       Berrien Circuit Court
JASON ROBERT HART,                                                     LC No. 2020-002059-FC

               Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SHAPIRO, P.J., and LETICA and FEENEY, JJ.

SHAPIRO, P.J. (concurring).

        Although I would hold that acts committed by the defendant prior to age 14 should not
have been admitted as “other acts” pursuant to MCL 768.27a, I agree that defendant’s conviction
should be affirmed. Even if those acts had been excluded, defendant’s sisters would have testified
to assaults committed after age 14 and given that, I cannot conclude that a different outcome would
have been probable.

         I also write to question the wisdom of the mandatory minimum sentence that had to be
imposed in this case. Defendant, age 47, was convicted of a single digital penetration in 2010. He
was acquitted of the charge that he took improper photos of the victim in 2020, and the victim
testified that the 2010 episode was the only time defendant assaulted her. The sentencing
guidelines recommended a minimum prison term of between 27 and 45 months. One may fairly
argue that the nature of the crime merits a significant upward departure from that range. However,
a mandatory sentence of 25 years, though we seem to have become inured to it, is an
extraordinarily harsh sentence for a single assault from 2010 with no demonstrated incidents of
criminal behavior since. While a sentence of that length is proper for some assailants and some
assaults, it is not proper for all. Effectively removing all sentencing discretion from the trial court
has largely eliminated the ability of the judiciary to impose individualized sentences, which has
always been a bedrock principle of Michigan law. And it transfers such judicial discretion to the
executive branch because by determining what charges to file and what plea bargain to offer, the
prosecutor controls sentencing.

                                                 -1-
       As I stated in my partial concurrence in People v Hall, unpublished per curiam opinion of
the Court of Appeals, issued September 4, 2014 (Docket No. 313795):

                 A defendant’s “sentence should be tailored to the particular circumstances
         of the case and the offender in an effort to balance both society’s need for protection
         and its interest in maximizing the offender's rehabilitative potential.” People v
         McFarlin, 389 Mich. 557, 574; 208 NW2d 504 (1973). Such particularized
         determinations are properly reserved for the trial court, which has heard the
         evidence and reviewed the applicable sentencing information. Individualized
         sentences cannot feasibly or constitutionally be administered by the Legislature or
         the Executive. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court struck down portions of
         sentencing guidelines enacted by Congress because the guidelines were mandatory
         and impermissibly limited a trial court’s sentencing discretion. United States v.
         Booker, 543 US 220, 258-260; 125 S Ct 738; 160 L Ed 2d 621 (2005) (STEVENS,
         J.).

                                                * * *

                 It is clear that the mandatory minimum set by MCL 750.520b(2)(b)
         represents the Legislature’s view that those guilty of CSC I against victims under
         age 13 should be severely punished and I agree that severe punishment is typically
         proper. However, the question is whether it is proper in all cases such that a 25-
         year minimum is always a just sentence. As Justice Scalia has noted, the “most
         significant role[ ] for judges is ‘to protect the individual criminal defendant against
         the occasional excesses of th[e] popular will, and to preserve the checks and
         balances within our constitutional system that are precisely designed to inhibit swift
         and complete accomplishment of the popular will.”[1]

                 [T]he political system is biased in favor of more severe
                 punishments. There are few forces that can counter the government
                 when it overreaches on crime. As Jeremy Bentham observed,
                 “legislators and men in general are naturally inclined” in that
                 direction because “antipathy, or a want of compassion for
                 individuals who are represented as dangerous and vile, pushes them
                 onward to an undue severity.” Bentham therefore advocated that,
                 “It is on this side [towards severity], therefore, that we should take
                 the most precautions, as on this side there has been shown the
                 greatest disposition to err.”[2]

       Finally, I note that the maximum sentence imposed by the court in this case was 53 years.
Thus, regardless of the minimum term, defendant may be lawfully imprisoned until he is 100 years

1
    Scalia, The rule of law as a law of rules, 56 U Chi L Rev 1175, 1180 (1989).
2
  Barkow, Separation of powers and the criminal law, 58 Stan L Rev 989, 1030-1031 (2006)
(citations omitted).

                                                  -2-
old. The only question is when the parole board will be permitted to consider if it is safe and
proper to release him.
                                                         /s/ Douglas B. Shapiro

                                              -3-