Court Opinion

ID: 9528943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:45:31.446433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:30.033029
License: Public Domain

McDonald, P.J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent and would remand for resentencing.
Unlike the majority, I agree with this Court’s opinion in People v Krause, 185 Mich App 353; 460 NW2d 900 (1990), and believe substantial and compelling reasons for departure from mandatory minimum sentences should be confined to those that are objective and verifiable. Although I would not go so far as to preclude a sentencing court’s consideration of actions or incidents occurring after a defendant’s arrest, contra, People v Downey, 183 Mich App 405; 454 NW2d 235 (1990), I do agree such actions or occurrences must be external to the minds of the judge, defendant, and others involved in making the decision to be considered proper factors for departure.
As indicated in Downey, the trial court must begin its analysis from the perspective that the *580Legislature has declared the mandatory minimum sentence to be an appropriate sentence. Thus, any departure therefrom must be supported by reasons which clearly show why the sentence is inappropriate for the defendant.
If we allow subjective factors, incapable of independent verification, to be considered sufficient reasons for departure, appellate courts will once again be left with an ambiguous standard of sentence review reminiscent of the "shock the conscious” standard, recently abandoned by our Supreme Court in People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630; 461 NW2d 1 (1990).
Although in the instant casé the factors given by the trial court for departure are both subjective and objective, none constitute substantial and compelling reasons to justify reduction of the mandatory minimum sentence.
The trial court cites defendant’s lack of a prior record as the first objective factor justifying departure. If the Legislature intended a first offender to be exempt from the mandatory minimum sentence, such an exception could have easily been stated. Even the trial court recognized that such a factor "in and of itself of course could not be a substantial and compelling reason” to depart.
The trial court next cites defendant’s "very steady work record.” Although another objective factor, I do not believe it constitutes a compelling reason for a downward departure from the mandatory minimum sentence. Most persons would agree one of the main reasons the Legislature enacted mandatory sentencing for drug convictions is to deter otherwise law-abiding citizens from being tempted to supplement their incomes by engaging in illicit drug sales. Thus, an employed person with no prior record, such as defendant, is the type *581of person the Legislature intended to discourage from participating in drug trafficking.
Finally, as additional reasons for the reduced sentence, the trial court cites defendant’s substantial family support and his motivation and desire to live a law-abiding life. These subjective factors fall far short of being substantial and compelling reasons to ignore a mandatory minimum sentence. Defendant’s substantial family support is a credit to his family, not the defendant. Additionally, defendant’s expressed desire to live a law-abiding life is a common subject of allocution. Few defendants fail to confess the error of their ways and promise better conduct if shown leniency at sentencing. Most men and women of the cloth would marvel at a trial judge’s average conversion rate. Although a person’s desire to lead a law-abiding life is a goal of our criminal justice system, such a factor should not be considered» a substantial and compelling reason for departure where independent verification at sentencing is nearly impossible. I would remand for resentencing.