Court Opinion

ID: 9738529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:55:38.423226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:06.313539
License: Public Domain

Levin, J.
(dissenting). I have signed and join in Justice Cavanagh’s and Chief Justice Brickley’s dissenting opinions, which focus principally on the sentencing guidelines.
I write separately to explain why I have concluded that the sentence imposed on John Henry Houston was disproportionate under the standard set forth in People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630; 461 NW2d 1 (1990).
*351The majority states that "the sentencing guidelines range is simply inapplicable to Mr. Houston,”1 finding that the sentencing judge articulated factors that either were not included in the guidelines scoring or not adequately weighed by the scoring charts. The majority concludes that the sentencing judge satisfied the proportionality requirement of Milbourn, agreeing with his finding that the recommended guideline range is "inadequate to reflect the seriousness of this offense.”2
In Milbourn, this Court held that sentences were reviewable under the "principle of proportionality,” derived from legislation providing more severe punishments for more severe crimes and for offenders with prior convictions.3 This Court said, "The trial court appropriately exercises the discretion left to it by the Legislature not by applying its own philosophy of sentencing, but by determining where, on the continuum from the least to the most serious situations, an individual case falls and by sentencing the offender in accordance with this determination.”4 The Court concluded that, because the sentencing guidelines "represent the actual sentencing practices of the judiciary,” they are "the best 'barometer’ of where on the continuum from the least to the most threatening circumstances a given case falls.”5
Quite apart from the guidelines, the sentence imposed on Houston violates the principle of proportionality set forth in Milbourn.
The majority’s criticism of the sentencing guidelines suggests the need for a current scientific study of sentencing practices in Michigan courts to *352assist judges in review for proportionality. Our central staff, the commissioner’s office, might be asked to compile sentencing information for various crimes from among the pool of applications for leave to appeal to this Court.6
In the absence of such a study, I have conducted an "unscientific” review of a sampling of commissioner’s reports evaluating applications for leave to appeal in esc cases in January and February 1994 and February, 1995. These over sixty cases are most likely to reflect the range of punishment imposed in circumstances resembling the instant case.
From this review, it appears that few defendants have received sentences as long as Houston’s sentence of twenty-five to fifty years, and then only when one or more of the following factors were present: a physical assault, in addition to the sexual assault, causing physical injury to the victim;7 a victim under the age of puberty, often *353under the age of ten or even under the age of five;8 an elderly victim;9 a record of prior criminal activity, including, in some cases, prior esc convic*354tions;10 a long-term pattern of sexual abuse with, the victim;11 and a close "familial” relationship *355between the defendant and the victim.12
In the instant case, while Houston was related to the victim by blood, he did not generally reside *356in the household. The victim was fourteen years old, and thus had reached puberty and was considerably older than most of the child victims in the reviewed cases. Houston did not have a history of sexual abuse involving the victim, nor did he have any prior criminal record. While the victim suffered psychological trauma, as would almost any victim of a sexual assault, she was not subjected to physical injury.
This is not to say that some departure from the guidelines would not have been warranted, provided the sentencing judge had adequately explained his reasoning.
The following are categorized summaries of some representative cases.13
*357In the following cases, there was a familial or close relationship between the defendant and the victim, usually a young child:
People v Alderman, No. 97260 — Defendant was sentenced to terms of ten to twenty years. He was convicted by a Lapeer Circuit Court jury of three counts of esc i on evidence that he had sexual intercourse with his eleven-year-old stepdaughter four times during a night that the victim’s younger brother was taken to the hospital by her mother.14
People v Vega, No. 99747 — Defendant was sentenced to fifteen to thirty years. He was convicted by an Oakland Circuit Court jury on evidence that he raped the eleven-year-old friend of his sister, on two occasions at his home.
People v Hill, No. 98388 — Defendant was sentenced to ten to twenty years. The victim was a six-year-old friend of her daughter. Defendant was convicted by a Macomb County jury of esc I on evidence that she penetrated the victim’s vagina with her finger while the victim was sleeping at the defendant’s home.
*358People v Pierce, No. 97510 — Defendant, age twenty-seven, was sentenced to five to ten years. Defendant and his girlfriend regularly cared for the victim and her siblings. The defendant was found guilty by a Delta County jury of two counts of esc i on evidence that he engaged in cunnilingus and intercourse with the victim on repeated occasions while her siblings were present in the same room.15
People v Greer, No. 97337 — Defendant was sentenced to ten to twenty years. He was convicted of esc i by a Marquette County jury on evidence that he forced the victim, the ten-year-old biological son of his wife, to engage in oral sex.16
People v Brown, No. 98195 — Defendant was sentenced to three to twenty years for esc i and three to fifteen years for esc n. He was convicted by an Oakland County jury on evidence that he sexually assaulted his three-year-old daughter on two occasions.17
People v Heath, No. 97484 — Defendant, age forty-four, was sentenced to fifteen to twenty-five years for convictions of esc i and ten to fifteen years for esc ii. Defendant was convicted on a nolo contendere plea to six counts of esc i and one count of esc ii in Oakland Circuit Court on evidence that he, a close family friend of the victim, had forced her, from the age of seven to the age of eleven, to engage in over 100 instances of forced oral, digital and vaginal penetration.
People v Farnsworth, No. 97849 — Defendant was sentenced to four to ten years for a esc i convic*359tion and four to fifteen years for esc n. He was convicted in Detroit Recorder’s Court on evidence that he sexually abused his stepdaughter over a period of years.18
People v Parsons, No. 100403 — Defendant, age fifty-five, was sentenced to fifteen to thirty years. He was convicted in Eaton Circuit Court on a plea of guilty of one count of esc i on evidence that he had his six-year-old granddaughter fellate him.19
People v Glockzin, No. 100473 — Defendant, age twenty-one, was sentenced to seven and one-half to forty years. He was convicted of esc i on a plea of guilty in Muskegon Circuit Court on evidence that he forced two victims, a five-year-old girl and her ten-year-old brother, to engage in oral sex.20
People v Luckey, No. 97530 — Defendant, age twenty-eight, was sentenced to forty to eighty years for two esc i convictions, and ten to fifteen years for a esc ii conviction. He was convicted by a Recorder’s Court jury on evidence that he engaged in repeated vaginal intercourse with the eight-year-old daughter of his live-in girlfriend. As a result of these encounters, the victim suffered genital warts.
In the following cases, in addition to the close relationship with the victim, the defendant had a prior criminal record:
People v Santos, No. 97651 — Defendant, age thirty-two, was sentenced to twenty-five to fifty years. He was convicted by an Ingham Circuit Court jury of two counts of esc i on evidence that *360he anally and vaginally penetrated the two-yearoid daughter of his live-in girlfriend.21
People v Matthews, No. 100501 — Defendant was sentenced to fifteen to twenty-two and one-half years as a second felony offender. He was convicted following a Muskegon Circuit Court bench trial of one count of esc in on evidence that he engaged in a regular pattern of sexual intercourse with his daughter since she was twelve.22
People v Mott, No. 100551 — Defendant, age thirty-four, was sentenced to nine and one-half to fifteen years. He was convicted on a plea of guilty of one count of esc ii in the Saginaw Circuit Court on evidence that he molested the nine-year-old victim, who called him "Uncle John,” while she stayed with him during her summer vacations from school.23
People v Ricky Lee Walker, No. 100542 — Defendant was sentenced to fourteen to thirty years. He was convicted on a plea of guilty of one count of esc i in Genesee Circuit Court on evidence that on numerous occasions, beginning when his stepdaughter was in the fourth grade and continuing until her thirteenth birthday, he forced her to perform fellatio and engage in vaginal intercourse.24
People v Nelson, No. 100534 — Defendant, age nineteen, was sentenced to eleven to thirty years *361as an habitual offender. He was convicted by .a Washtenaw Circuit Court jury of one count of esc i on evidence that he forced his five-year-old cousin to perform fellatio.25
People v Corder, No. 100519 — Defendant, age fifty-five, was sentenced to twelve to twenty-two and one-half years. He was convicted by a Berrien Circuit Court jury of one count of esc ii on evidence that he engaged in sexual conduct with his mentally retarded twenty-four-year-old daughter.26
People v Saunders, No. 100500 — Defendant, age forty-two, was sentenced to fifteen to thirty years. He was convicted on a plea of nolo contendere in the Kent Circuit Court on evidence that he attempted to have sexual intercourse with his ten-year-old daughter, and, when she resisted, performed cunnilingus and digitally penetrated her vagina, and then ejaculated.27
People v Abernathy, No. 100487 — Defendant, age twenty-eight, was sentenced to life in prison. He was convicted in Detroit Recorder’s Court of esc i on evidence that he sexually assaulted the twelve-year-old daughter of the woman with whom he was living.28
The sentence imposed on Houston, who had no prior record, is disproportionate. I would reverse and remand for resentencing._

 Ante at 328.

 Ante at 321.

 Id. at 650.

 Id. at 653-654 (emphasis in original).

 Id. at 656.

 The pool of defendants who apply for leave to appeal to this Court represents the most severe cases — generally those in which the trial court sentenced more heavily.

 People v Tibbs, No. 97523, dragged victim to bedroom, severely beat and raped her — life sentence; People v Antonio Williams, No. 97497, defendant raped and robbed victim in her home — 30 to 50 years; People v Ross, No. 97722, defendant assaulted and raped victim in defendant’s home — 12 to 30 years; People v Wilbon, No. 97684, defendant went to home of former girlfriend and forced her to have sex — 20 to 30 years; People v Sandridge, No. 97801, defendant beat and bound former girlfriend, forced her to perform fellatio, then took her to backyard in subfreezing temperatures to have intercourse — 4 to 15 years; People v Walker, No. 97602, defendant assaulted, bound and raped former girlfriend in victim’s apartment — 5 to 15 years; People v Weeks, No. 97614, defendant forced victim into her car at knifepoint, then drove her to a secluded area where he forced her to perform fellatio, took money and drove away in victim’s car — 25 to 80 years on guilty plea; People v Conklin, No. 97771, victim was inmate in county jail where defendant, along with others, beat victim and inserted six-inch stick smeared with grease into victim’s anus — 20 to 90 years; People v Lyons, No. 97414, defendant robbed, then raped victim — 25 to 40 years; People v Holland, No. 99914, defendant grabbed estranged wife in parking lot, dragged her to alley where codefendant was waiting, threw her into trunk of car, physically *353assaulted and raped victim twice at gunpoint — 25 to 50 years; People v Michael Williams, No. 99799, defendant participated in rape with codefendant in Holland — 18 to 30 years; People v Harris, No. 100321, defendant followed victim home off bus, took her to a vacant building and required her to perform fellatio and engage in intercourse at gunpoint — 25 to 50 years; People v Martin, No. 100494, multiple gang rape by four men who broke into victim’s house — 40 to 80 years; People v Sandeen, No. 100592, defendant abducted barmaid at knife-point, drove a distance and forced her to fellate him at knifepoint — 35 to 60 years; People v Garries, No. 100618, physical assault on victim in her home by defendant who broke and entered — 25 to 75 years.

 People v Pierce, No. 97510, six-year-old girl — 5 to 10 years; People v Greer, No. 97337, ten-year-old boy — 10 to 20 years; People v Perez, No. 97452, twelve-year-old girl — 10 to 30 years; People v Harper, No. 97567, two victims were five- and six-year-old girls — 10 to 15 years on guilty plea; People v Qualls, No. 97500, ten-year-old girl — 8 to 15 years on a plea of nolo contendere; People v Santos, No. 97651, two-year-old girl — 25 to 50 years; People v Morofsky, Nos. 98226, 98323, six-year-old girl — 10 to 30 years; People v Anderson, No. 98159, eight-year-old son and stepbrother — 6 to 15 years on guilty plea; People v Luckey, No. 97530, eight-year-old girl — 40 to 80 years; People v Duggan, No. 98211, eleven-year-old mentally retarded boy — 15 to 30 years; People v Hill, No. 98388, six-year-old girl — 10 to 20 years; People v James Jones, No. 97723, twelve-year-old boy — 24 to 50 years; People v Heath, No. 97484, seven-year-old girl — 15 to 25 years; People v Fuller, No. 97700, daughter of live-in girlfriend — 30 to 60 years on guilty plea; People v Alderman, No. 97260, eleven-year-old stepdaughter — 10 to 20 years; People v Vega, No. 99747, eleven-year-old girl — 15 to 30 years; People v Debs, No. 100035, twelve-year-old boy— 15 to 30 years; People v Parsons, No. 100403, six-year-old granddaughter — 15 to 30 years; People v Burke, No. 100460, three-year-old daughter — 40 to 60 years; People v Mott, No. 100551, three year old— 9 ½ to 15 years on guilty plea; People v Walker, No. 100542, stepdaughter from ages ten to thirteen years old — 14 to 30 years on guilty plea; People v Nelson, No. 100534, five-year-old cousin — 11 to 30 years; People v Saunders, No. 100500, ten-year-old daughter — 15 to 30 years on a plea of nolo contendere; People v Abernathy, No. 100487, twelve-year-old daughter of girlfriend — life sentence; People v Glockzin, No. 100473, five-year-old girl and ten-year-old boy — 7 ½ to 40 years; People v Raymond Walker, No. 100627, six-year-old — 5 to 22 ½ years; People v Ritchie, No. 100777, eight-year-old girl — 30 to 60 years.

 People v Smith, No. 97615, seventy-one-year-old mentally retarded man — 15 to 22 ½ years on guilty plea; People v Tibbs, n 7 supra, eighty-year-old woman — life sentence; People v Garries, n 7 supra, eighty-seven-year-old woman — 25 to 75 years.

 People v Smith, n 9 supra, juvenile record, two misdemeanors, larceny in building and probation violations — 15 to 22 ½ years on guilty plea; People v Clark, No. 97419, two counts of larceny under $100, use of firearm while intoxicated, subsequent esc ii — 10 to 15 years on guilty plea; People v Santos, n 8 supra, two prior misdemeanors — 25 to 50 years; People v Anderson, n 8 supra, juvenile adjudication for child molestation — 6 to 15 years on guilty plea; People v James Jones, n 8 supra, ccw, udaa, misdemeanor morals in South Carolina — 24 to 50 years; People v Heath, n 8 supra, three felonies for uttering and publishing — 15 to 25 years for esc i, 10 to 25 years for csc ii on guilty plea; People v Wilbon, n 7 supra, drunk and disorderly, larceny over $100, and unarmed robbery — 20 to 30 years; People v Sandridge, n 7 supra, malicious destruction of property over $100 — 4 to 15 years; People v Fuller, n 8 supra, csc I and driving while impaired — 30 to 60 years on guilty plea; People v Lyons, n 7 supra, assault and battery, esc i, esc n, and felonious assault in California — 25 to 40 years on csc i, 10 to 15 years on robbery; People v Holland, n 7 supra, csc ii and others — 25 to 50 years for rape, 15 to 30 years for kidnapping, 15 to 30 years for armed robbery; People v Debs, n 8 supra, attempted extortion, unlawful transporting of firearms, and three ccws — 15 to 30 years; People v Harris, n 7 supra, assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct — 25 to 50 years; People v Burke, n 8 supra, five adult misdemeanors, including assaultive crimes — 40 to 60 years for esc i and child abuse, 1st degree; People v Morrison, No. 100424, assault, disorderly conduct, ouil, others — 3 to 5 years for a plea of nolo contendere to esc in; People v Mott, n 8 supra, csc i, csc iv, and a misdemeanor — 9½ to 15 years on plea; People v Morgan, No. 100520, shoplifting, false pretenses, and hindering police officer — 5 to .15 years on guilty plea; People v Corder, No. 100519, csc iv and false pretenses — 12 to 22½ years; People v Saunders, n 8 supra, csc i, breaking and entering occupied dwelling, and numerous misdemeanors — 15 to 30 years on a plea of nolo contendere; People v Kassa, No. 100493, larceny — 2½ to 10 years; People v Abernathy, n 8 supra, csc iii — life; People v Sandeen, n 7 supra, three felonies and eight misdemeanors — 35 to 60 years for esc i, life for armed robbery on guilty plea; People v Garries, n 7 supra, malicious destruction of property, possession of lsd, and misdemeanors — 25 to 75 years; People v Claybron, No. 100636, 1978 assault and battery — 5 to 15 years for csc ii on guilty plea.

 People v Qualls, n 8 supra, raped victim daily for six months — 8 to 15 years for csc iii on a plea of nolo contendere; People v Clark, n 10 supra, repeated penetrations of stepdaughter over three-year period — 10 to 15 years for csc ii on guilty plea; People v Linares, No. 97581, stepsister had been abused by defendant for a period of years— 10 to 15 years on guilty plea to csc ii; People v Luckey, n 8 supra, repeated vaginal intercourse with daughter of live-in girlfriend — 40 to 80 years for csc i, 10 to 15 years for csc ii; People v Heath, n 8 supra, defendant engaged in over 100 instances of forced oral, digital and vaginal penetration over three year period — 15 to 25 years for esc i, *35510 to 15 years for csc ii on guilty plea; People v Farnsworth, No. 97849, defendant sexually abused daughter of ex-wife for a period of years — 4 to 10 years for esc i, 4 to 15 years for esc ii; People v Fuller, n 8 supra, defendant repeatedly sexually abused daughter of live-in girlfriend — 30 to 60 years for csc i on guilty plea; People v Parsons, n 8 supra, defendant required granddaughters to fellate him — 15 to 30 years for csc i on guilty plea; People v Burke, n 8 supra, defendant abused daughter and injured her vaginal area — 40 to 60 years; People v Matthews, No. 100501, defendant engaged in intercourse with adult daughter and evidence indicated that this began when daughter was 12, continuing on a regular basis — 15 to 22 ½ years; People v Walker, n 8 supra, defendant engaged in fellatio and intercourse with stepdaughter for a period of over three years — 14 to 30 years for csc i on guilty plea.

 People v Greer, n 8 supra, victim was defendant’s wife’s biological son — received 10 to 120 years; People v Qualls, n 8 supra, victim was ten-year-old daughter — received 8 to 15 years for csc m on a plea of nolo contendere; People v Clark, n 10 supra, victim was stepdaughter —received 10 to 15 years for two counts of csc ii on guilty plea; People v Santos, n 8 supra, victim was daughter of live-in girlfriend— received 25 to 50 years; People v Morofsky, n 8 supra, victim called defendant "uncle” — received 10 to 30 years; People v Anderson, n 8 supra, victims were defendant’s son and stepbrother, while visiting defendant’s home — received 6 to 15 years for esc ii on guilty plea; People v Linares, n 11 supra, victim was stepsister — received 10 to 15 years for esc ii on guilty plea; People v Luckey, n 8 supra, victim was daughter of live-in girlfriend — received 40 to 80 years for csc i, 10 to 15 years for csc u; People v Brown, No. 98195, victim was daughter— received 3 to 20 years for esc I, 3 to 15 years for esc ii; People v Farnsworth, n 11 supra, victim was daughter of ex-wife — received 4 to 10 years for esc i, 4 to 15 years for esc ii; People v Fuller, n 8 supra, victim was daughter of live-in girlfriend — received 30 to 60 years for esc i, second offense on guilty plea; People v Alderman, n 8 supra, victim was stepdaughter — received 10 to 20 years; People v Vega, n 8 supra, defendant was older brother of victim’s girlfriend — received 15 to 30 years; People v Parsons, n 8 supra, victims were granddaughters —received 15 to 30 years for esc i on guilty plea; People v Burke, n 8 supra, victim was defendant’s daughter — received 40 to 60 years; People v Matthews, n 11 supra, victim was daughter — received 15 to 22 ½ years; People v Walker, n 8 supra, victim was stepdaughter— received 14 to 30 years for csc i on guilty plea; People v Nelson, n 8 supra, victim was cousin — received 11 to 30 years; People v Morgan, n 10 supra, victim was stepson — received 5 to 15 years for esc ii on guilty plea; People v Corder, n 10 supra, victim was mentally retarded daughter — received 12 to 22 ½ years; People v Saunders, n 8 supra, victim was daughter — received 15 to 30 years for esc i on a plea of nolo contendere; People v Abernathy, n 8 supra, victim was daughter of woman with whom he was living — received life sentence.

 In the following cases, there was no close relationship:
People v Perez, No. 97452 — The defendant was sentenced to ten to thirty years on three counts of CSC i. He was convicted by an Ottawa Circuit Court jury on evidence that on one occasion he had vaginal intercourse and engaged in cunnilingus with a twelve-year-old girl who was babysitting his girlfriend’s children.
People v Raymond Anthony Walker, No. 100627 — Defendant was sentenced to five to twenty-two and one-half years as an habitual offender. He was convicted by a Muskegon Circuit Court jury of a sexual assault of a six-year-old victim while he was staying at her mother’s home.
People v Ritchie, No. 100777 — Defendant was sentenced to thirty to sixty years. He was convicted by a Recorder’s Court jury of esc i on evidence that he attacked the eight-year-old daughter of the family with whom he was living. As a result, the child’s hymen was perforated and she had contracted gonorrhea. The defendant had a prior armed robbery conviction and was an escapee from prison.
People v Duggan, No. 98211 — Defendant, age fifty-four, was sentenced to fifteen to thirty years. He was convicted by a Macomb County Circuit Court jury on evidence that he forced a mentally retarded eleven-year-old boy to perform fellatio on him in the bathroom of a donut store they both regularly frequented. The defendant had a long prior criminal record.
People v James Jones, No. 97723 — Defendant, age forty-five, was sentenced to twenty-four to fifty years as an habitual offender after a remand for resentencing by the Court of Appeals. He was convicted by a Genesee County jury of esc i on evidence that he sexually assaulted a twelve-year-old boy with whom he had become acquainted and who spent a night in the defendant’s automobile.
People v Debs, No. 100035 — Defendant, age fifty-four, was sentenced *357to fifteen to thirty years. He was convicted in Recorder’s Court of one count of esc i on evidence that he forced a twelve-year-old boy to fellate him while several older boys were fellating him. There was evidence that defendant had been paying the boys for sex. He had a long prior criminal record, including attempted extortion, unlawful transportation of firearms, and three convictions for carrying a concealed weapon.
People v Lyons, No. 97414 — Defendant, age forty, was sentenced to twenty-five to forty years for esc I, and ten to fifteen years for robbery. He was convicted ■ by a Calhoun Circuit Court jury for assaulting a sixteen-year-old boy on the street and robbing him of a nickel. Apparently angered by the meager amount, he pulled the boy off the sidewalk out of sight, pulled down the boy’s pants and penetrated his anus with his finger. Lyons then attempted to engage in anal intercourse, but fled when he saw police. Lyons had one prior misdemeanor and three prior felony convictions, including one conviction each for esc i and attempted esc n.

 The defendant told the victim not to tell her mother. The victim eventually told her mother two years later, after the defendant and her mother had separated.

 Defendant had threatened the siblings if they told anyone.

 The victim was not living with his mother, but had been adopted by another family. There was also evidence that the defendant had engaged in an attempted sexual assault on the victim’s five-year-old sister.

 There was some evidence that the defendant was engaged in paternity and support litigation with the victim’s mother.

 The allegations of abuse came to light after the defendant divorced the victim’s mother.

 The defendant was charged with having two other granddaughters, eight and ten, perform similar acts, but those charges were dismissed in exchange for the guilty plea.

 The defendant was a neighbor of the victim’s family and regularly performed babysitting services.

 He had two prior misdemeanor convictions.

 The daughter, twenty at the time of trial, claimed that the defendant had digitally penetrated her starting at the age of six. The defendant had a history of prior convictions.

 On two occasions, the defendant put his hand inside her underwear and digitally penetrated her. There was also evidence that he sexually touched the victim’s three-year-old sister. The defendant had a prior record of convictions for esc i, esc iv, and a misdemeanor.

 The sexual assaults ended when the stepdaughter’s mother unexpectedly returned home and discovered the defendant sexually assaulting her daughter. Defendant had a prior criminal record, including a conviction for carrying a concealed weapon.

 The defendant had a prior conviction for larceny.

 The defendant had a prior esc iv conviction, and a conviction for false pretenses involving less than $100.

 The defendant had a number of prior convictions, including esc i, breaking and entering, and numerous misdemeanors.

 The defendant was on parole for a conviction of csc iii of a five-year-old girl.