Court Opinion

ID: 9663396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:37:45.209343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:49.186113
License: Public Domain

G. R. Cook, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. I believe the trial court met its Coles burden. In People v Coles, 417 Mich 523, 550; 339 NW2d 440 (1983), the Court said:
This Court noted in People v Snow, 386 Mich 586, 592; 194 NW2d 314 (1972), that the proper criteria for determining an appropriate sentence include: (1) the disciplining of the wrongdoer, (2) the protection of society, (3) the potential for reformation of the offender, and (4) the deterring of others from committing like offenses. This list is not exhaustive, and we do not purport to instruct the trial courts on every criterion which they must consider when imposing a sentence. However, we *276do now require that the trial court state on the record which criteria were considered and what reasons support the court’s decision regarding the length and nature of punishment imposed.
At the time of sentencing, the trial court stated:
The Court: The thing that bothers me more than anything else in this matter, sir, is that — it was 1981 wasn’t it when you started having problems with alcohol? You continued — and you drove and had that problem?
Mr. Latzman: Could you repeat that please?
The Court: You’ve been convicted of driving under the influence before, haven’t you sir?
Mr. Latzman: Yes, I was. When I first received my license at the age of sixteen.
The Court: Sir, this isn’t easy for me to do. But, sir, it is the sentence of this court that based upon the file and the seriousness and the circumstances in this particular matter, I’m sentencing you to the custody of the Department of Corrections for a minimum period of time of five years and a maximum period of fifteen. Do you understand that, sir?
Thus, either directly or by an obvious and clear inference, the sentencing court:
a) disciplined the defendant;
b) protected society;
c) hoped to reform the offender;
d) deterred others from committing like offenses.
Coles does not require the sentencing court to give a lengthy and detailed explanation for every sentence. What Coles does require is that a reason be given for the sentence and that the court must take into account the individual being sentenced. The trial court did that.
I would affirm.