Court Opinion

ID: 9739782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:20:43.39099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:13.864628
License: Public Domain

Griffin, P.J.
(dissenting). This Court has again *608exceeded its authority by vacating defendant’s sentence and remanding the case for resentencing. No court has the authority to vacate a valid sentence. A remand for resentencing may be ordered only with regard to those sentences that are invalid. In re Dana Jenkins, 438 Mich 364, 369; 475 NW2d 279 (1991), People v Adams, 441 Mich 916; 497 NW2d 182 (1993), People v Martin, 440 Mich 868; 486 NW2d 734 (1992), and People v Herron, 440 Mich 868; 486 NW2d 734 (1992).
The majority’s opinion contains no finding that the sentence at issue is invalid. Rather, the focus of the majority’s opinion is that the trial court failed to articulate adequate reasons for the sentence imposed. Specifically, the majority vacates the sentence and orders resentencing because "the trial court’s 'reasons’ for exceeding the guidelines are nothing more than boiler plate language that does not tell us anything about why this particular defendant is being sentenced to a prison term twice the maximum of the guidelines’ minimum.” Ante, p 604. I disagree. Two sentences later in the majority’s opinion, Judge Shepherd summarizes the following additional reasons given for the sentence:
Although the trial court cited [1] defendant’s lengthy criminal history, [2] his lack of a consis- " tent and reputable work history, [3] his questionable drug use, and [4] his disciplinary problems while in prison, it made no effort to tell us why this particular defendant has to receive a sentence greater than those received in seventy-five percent of the cases, and specifically why must it be an additional twenty-five years? Ante, p 604.
The sentencing court also stated that the sentence was imposed in view of (5) the dangerousness of defendant, (6) for purposes of punishment, and *609(7) for the protection of society. The court noted (8) the aggravating facts of the crime, including an assault and battery upon and a threat to kill the victim, and (9) the defendant’s parole status at the time he committed this offense. I find the articulation more than sufficient to facilitate appellate review. A remand for further articulation is therefore unnecessary. People v Triplett, 432 Mich 568; 442 NW2d 622 (1989). People v Coles, 417 Mich 523, 549; 339 NW2d 440 (1983).
The majority suggests, in dicta, that sentencing courts should justify all sentences by comparing them with seventy-five percent of similar cases. If possible at all, such a task would be unduly burdensome and unworkable in practice.
With regard to the sentence itself, I find no abuse of sentencing discretion. People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). Defendant’s presentence report states, inter alia, the following:
Charles Jerome Benson is ... a consistently repetitive offender. His offenses are not harmless to others, such as shoplifting or loitering, but offenses meriting the label of capital crimes, that is, robbery armed. The within charge accounts for the subject’s tenth conviction for robbery armed. Just a few days ago, on 3-9-87, he was also convicted of the habitual offender statute out of Oakland County after initially being convicted of larceny over $100.00. In those cases, he received a 3-15 year prison term, for which he is now serving. His parole officer stated that the defendant was totally uncooperative on parole, failing to make any efforts to improve his situation.
PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD:
Adult Record:
4-10-74
Detroit, Mi., Assault With a Dangerous Weapon, convicted of Aggravated Assault; 5-9-74, 3 years *610probation with the first 30 days in the Detroit House of Correction; 9-3-76, found guilty of Violation of Probation and given an 8 month term in the Detroit House of Correction.
6-28-77
Detroit, Mi., 8 Counts Felony Firearm; 2 years in prison one each count; 6-29-77, sentence vacated by the Court.
6-28-77
Detroit, Mi., 8 Counts Robbery Armed; a period of 10 years on each count; sentenced to 3-10 years on each count; paroled 2-26-81.
3-3-81
Detroit, Mi., Robbery Armed; 10-5-81, convicted of same; 11-6-81, 5-15 years, Docket No. 81-01632, paroled 12-2-85.
9-29-86
Ferndale, Mi., Larceny Over $100; pled guilty to same on 2-5-87; sentence vacated on 3-9-87 by Judge Lippit of the Oakland County Circuit Court in Pontiac, Docket No. 86-75884FH.
3-9-87
Pontiac, Mi., — Oakland County Circuit Court, Habitual Offender; 3-15 years, Docket No. 86-75884FH.
At the time of the within offense, the defendant was on parole, having been released from prison on parole on 12-2-85.
The sentencing guidelines do not adequately account for defendant’s extensive prior criminal record. The prior record variables of the sentencing guidelines do not address a prior criminal record as lengthy as the defendant’s. After a thorough review of the record and the presentence report, I find that defendant’s fifty- to one-hundred-year sentence is proportionate to the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender. Milbourn, supra.
I would affirm defendant’s sentence and, therefore, respectfully dissent.