Court Opinion

ID: 9410400
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-21 05:07:17.112336+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:57.422047
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PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,                                     UNPUBLISHED
                                                                     July 20, 2023
               Plaintiff-Appellee,

v                                                                    No. 361571
                                                                     Wayne Circuit Court
EARVIN JAMIL PARCHMAN,                                               LC No. 17-001509-01-FC

               Defendant-Appellant.

Before: REDFORD, P.J., and O’BRIEN and FEENEY, JJ.

REDFORD, P.J. (dissenting).

       I respectfully dissent.

         Defendant in this case entered the victim’s home and waited for her there with another
person. When the victim arrived at her home, defendant told her she owed him money. This debt
was for drugs from defendant. She owed $80. After learning the victim did not have enough
money to pay her debt, defendant ordered the victim to a different part of her home, had her remove
all of her clothing, and get on the floor on all fours. Defendant then vaginally and anally raped the
victim, penetrating her body with a broomstick multiple times both vaginally and anally.
Defendant told the victim if she cried, he would use more force. The victim cried and urinated on
the floor during this violent and cruel violation. Defendant then stole the victim’s Bridge card and
used it to purchase himself things. Defendant’s Offense Variable (OV) score was 146 points. The
sentencing guidelines stop counting OVs in defendant’s case at 100.

       On resentencing following remand, the court ordered concurrent instead of consecutive
sentences. This effectively lowered defendant’s originally imposed sentence by 25 years.

       Based on the entire record, I conclude the statements of the trial court set forth in the
majority opinion more than adequately provide the basis for the departure and the extent of the
departure. The sentence of not less than 25 years (or 300 months) nor more than 50 years (or 600
months) was a 15-month upward departure above 285 months, which was the high end of
defendant’s sentencing guidelines range, a departure of 5.26%.

                                                -1-
          I find the sentence and its rationale proportionate to the crimes of conviction, and I would
affirm.

                                                               /s/ James Robert Redford

                                                  -2-