Court Opinion

ID: 9503561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:48:02.146793+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:34.268590
License: Public Domain

*1094CORRIGAN, J.
(concurring in the result). Although I dissented in People v Smith, 482 Mich 292 (2008), I concur in the Court’s decision to remand for resentencing. I conclude that resentencing is called for in this case for the fundamental reason that, in imposing a sentence that departs from the sentencing guidelines, the sentencing judge did not articulate her reasons with enough specificity “to allow for effective appellate review.” People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247, 259 n 13 (2003) (“[Hjowever it is articulated, the quality of the trial court’s statement must be sufficient to allow for effective appellate review.”). For example, the sentencing judge observed that defendant lied to the court. His perjury may well constitute a substantial and compelling reason to depart. But because the judge did not describe the nature of the perjury or its effects on the underlying proceedings, we are unable to meaningfully evaluate whether her reasons were sufficient to support a departure.