Court Opinion

ID: 9955718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 06:07:06.154312+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:16.990868
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PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,                                     UNPUBLISHED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 28, 2024
               Plaintiff-Appellee,

v                                                                    No. 360015
                                                                     Oakland Circuit Court
RONALD LEWIS KENNEDY,                                                LC No. 2013-244509-FC

               Defendant-Appellant.

                                          ON REMAND

Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and MURRAY and RIORDAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

        In 2013, a jury convicted defendant of second-degree murder, MCL 750.317, assault with
intent to commit murder, MCL 750.83, and domestic violence (third offense), MCL 750.81(4).
On remand, the trial court resentenced defendant as a fourth-offense habitual offender, MCL
769.12, to a term of 80 to 150 years for the second-degree murder conviction, and the previously-
imposed terms of 40 to 80 years for the assault conviction, and 3 to 15 years for the domestic-
violence conviction, to be served concurrently.1 Defendant appealed of right, and we affirmed.

1
 The trial court originally sentenced defendant as a fourth-offense habitual offender, to concurrent
prison terms of 70 to 150 years for the second-degree murder conviction, 40 to 80 years for the
assault with intent to commit murder conviction, and 3 to 15 years for the domestic-violence
conviction. In a prior appeal, this Court affirmed. People v Kennedy, unpublished per curiam
opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued December 4, 2014 (Docket No. 316985). In 2016, the trial
court denied defendant’s motion for relief from judgment, and this Court denied defendant’s
delayed application for leave to appeal that decision, People v Kennedy, unpublished order of the
Court of Appeals, entered August 10, 2016 (Docket No. 333655). Thereafter, defendant filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, which conditionally granted the petition in part and ordered that the case be remanded

                                                -1-
People v Kennedy, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued December 29,
2022 (Docket No. 360015). On defendant’s subsequent application, the Supreme Court, in lieu of
granting leave to appeal, vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals to the extent that it is
inconsistent with the decision in People v Posey, 512 Mich 317; 1 NW3d 101 (2023) (Posey II),
and remanded for reconsideration in light of Posey. In all other respects, the Supreme Court denied
leave to appeal. People v Kennedy, 997 NW2d 184 (2023). We again affirm.

        As noted, the trial court scored the sentencing guidelines for defendant’s conviction of
second-degree murder and sentenced defendant to a minimum term of 80 years (960 months),
which was within the applicable guidelines range of 315 to 1,050 months.2 In our prior opinion
we held that, because the trial court sentenced defendant within the advisory sentencing guidelines
range, his sentence need not be reviewed for reasonableness, and must be affirmed unless there
was an error in scoring the guidelines or the trial court relied on inaccurate information. See People
v Anderson, 322 Mich App 622, 636; 912 NW2d 607 (2018), citing MCL 769.34(10) (if a sentence
is within the sentencing guidelines range, this Court must affirm the sentence absent a scoring
error or reliance on inaccurate information). Because defendant did not argue that the trial court
relied on inaccurate information, and because there was no error in the scoring of the sentencing
guidelines, we affirmed the sentences. Nevertheless, knowing that Posey was pending before the
Supreme Court, we stated that “[e]ven if we considered defendant’s proportionality argument, we
would conclude that the trial court more than adequately analyzed the relevant factors and ordered
a sentence proportionate to the crime and the offender.” Kennedy, unpub op at 3 n 4.

        We now take on the proportionality issue more directly. In doing so, we are guided by
this Court’s decision on remand in Posey, People v Posey (On Remand), ___ Mich App ___, ___;
___ NW3d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 345491) (Posey III); slip op at 2, in which this Court clarified
that the following principles apply in determining the proportionality of a sentence that fell within
the advisory guidelines:

       [W]ithin-guidelines sentences are to be reviewed for reasonableness, that
       reasonableness review requires a determination whether a sentence was
       proportionate, that there is a nonbinding presumption of proportionality, meaning
       that a within-guidelines sentence is not binding on the Court of Appeals, that the
       defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that their within-guidelines sentence
       is unreasonable or disproportionate, and that a within-guidelines sentence may
       indeed be disproportionate or unreasonable. [Quotation marks and citations
       omitted.]

to the trial court for resentencing. Kennedy v Jackson, opinion of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, issued July 14, 2020 (Case No. 2:17-cv-11578).
2
  The trial court scored the guidelines for defendant’s conviction of second-degree murder, which
is a class M2 offense, MCL 777.16p. The trial court’s scoring of the guidelines placed defendant
in the E-III cell of the applicable sentencing grid, for which the minimum sentence range is 315 to
525 months. MCL 777.61. Because defendant was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual
offender, the upper limit of his range is increased by 100%, MCL 777.21(3)(c), resulting in an
enhanced sentencing guidelines range of 315 to 1,050 months.

                                                 -2-
The Posey III Court also set forth the basic caselaw governing the reasonableness and
proportionality inquiry as follows:

              In People v Steanhouse, 500 Mich 453, 459-460; 902 NW2d 327 (2017),
       the Michigan Supreme Court observed:

                       [T]he proper inquiry when reviewing a sentence for
               reasonableness is whether the trial court abused its discretion by
               violating the “principle of proportionality” set forth in People v
               Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 636; 461 NW2d 1 (1990), “which requires
               sentences imposed by the trial court to be proportionate to the
               seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the
               offender.”

                “An appropriate sentence should give consideration to the reformation of
       the offender, the protection of society, the discipline of the offender, and the
       deterrence of others from committing the same offense.” People v Boykin, 510
       Mich 171, 183; 987 NW2d 58 (2022). With respect to sentencing and the
       guidelines, the key test is not whether a sentence departs from or adheres to the
       guidelines range. Steanhouse, 500 Mich at 472. The key test is whether the
       sentence is proportionate to the seriousness of the matter. Id. In regard to
       proportionality, the Milbourn Court “observed that the Legislature has determined
       to visit the stiffest punishment against persons who have demonstrated an
       unwillingness to obey the law after prior encounters with the criminal justice
       system.” Milbourn, 435 Mich at 668. “The premise of our system of criminal
       justice is that, everything else being equal, the more egregious the offense, and the
       more recidivist the criminal, the greater the punishment.” People v Babcock, 469
       Mich 247, 263; 666 NW2d 231 (2003). [Posey III, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op
       at 2-3.]

The question now before us is whether the trial court abused its discretion in resentencing
defendant to 30 to 60 years’ imprisonment for second-degree murder in light of Posey II.

        As we recounted in our prior opinion, the trial court articulated numerous compelling
reasons why the sentences imposed were appropriate for this defendant and these crimes.
Specifically, the court mentioned the horrific nature of the crimes, the dramatic impact it had on
the victim and her family, and the protection of society:

       The resentencing judge clearly had different “perceptions, experience, and
       judgment” than the original sentencing judge, which is precisely what the judge
       elucidated when explaining the reasons for sentencing defendant. The judge had
       thoroughly reviewed the circumstances of the case, including both the original and
       updated presentence reports, defendant's prior record, defendant's current
       circumstances, sentencing memorandums and letters submitted to the court, and
       “issues such as protection of society, punishment, rehabilitation, deterrence.” The
       judge stated that this case was “among the most, if not the most horrific cases that
       [he] ha[d] dealt with during [his] time as a judge” before explaining at great length

                                               -3-
       the reasons supporting the sentence imposed. After detailing the facts and
       defendant's troubling and escalating criminal history, the judge stated: “It is my best
       judgment that the appropriate and proportionate . . . sentence in this case is a greater
       sentence than that imposed by [the original sentencing judge].” [Kennedy, unpub
       op at 3-4.]

        We have no hesitation concluding that this sentence was proportionate to the offender and
the offense. The trial court, after considering all the material supplied by the parties and the trial
record, properly considered the nature of the crime, the protection of society, and the impact the
crime had on the victim’s family, amongst other things, in imposing the sentence.

       Affirmed.

                                                              /s/ Michael J. Kelly
                                                              /s/ Christopher M. Murray
                                                              /s/ Michael J. Riordan

                                                 -4-