Court Opinion

ID: 9411846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 06:05:51.709968+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:15.878035
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PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,                                   UNPUBLISHED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 27, 2023
               Plaintiff-Appellee,

v                                                                  No. 360871
                                                                   Grand Traverse Circuit Court
MATTHEW ELLIOTT REIVE,                                             LC No. 2021-013828-FH

               Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GADOLA, P.J., and MURRAY and MALDONADO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

        Defendant, Matthew Elliott Reive, appeals by leave granted1 his concurrent sentences of
21 to 60 months’ imprisonment for his convictions of attempted uttering and publishing, MCL
750.249; MCL 750.92, and attempted forgery, MCL 750.248; MCL 750.92. On appeal, defendant
argues that the trial court imposed an unreasonable sentence when it departed from the sentencing
guidelines minimum range. We affirm.

                                     I. BACKGROUND FACTS

       The convictions in this case stem from defendant’s fraudulent endorsement of checks that
were taken from two individuals’ mailboxes and presented at credit unions to be cashed.
Defendant purportedly received the checks from another individual. Defendant successfully
cashed one check taken from the first victim’s mailbox in the amount of $290 by altering the check
to make it payable to himself. Defendant successfully cashed another check taken from the second
victim’s mailbox by altering the amount from $150 to $750 and by making the check payable to
himself. Defendant was unsuccessful in cashing one check taken from the first victim’s mailbox
because a credit union employee noticed “abnormalities” and told defendant that the victim would

1
 People v Reive, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered May 5, 2022 (Docket No.
360871).

                                               -1-
have to be contacted before the check could be cashed, at which point defendant left the credit
union and left the check behind.

        Defendant was originally charged with three counts of forgery and two counts of uttering
and publishing in this case and two counts of uttering and publishing in a separate case. However,
the parties entered into a plea agreement in which defendant pleaded guilty to attempted uttering
and publishing and attempted forgery in this case in exchange for the dismissal of all other charges
in both cases.

         The sentencing guidelines range was calculated to be 0 to 17 months for both crimes. At
sentencing, the trial court reflected on defendant’s extensive criminal history, which included six
felonies and four misdemeanors. Most of these crimes were committed in defendant’s home state
of Tennessee. The court noted that defendant had served seven years of a 10-year prison sentence
for aggravated assault before he was paroled in April 2020 and moved to Michigan. The trial court
also found that defendant’s criminal conduct in this case occurred about a year after being released
from prison. By April 2021, defendant was charged with OWI and motor vehicle tampering.
While he was out on bond for the OWI, defendant committed the crimes at issue here. In May
2021, after the instant offenses, he committed another OWI. Then in June 2021, he committed a
retail fraud. These charges were pending at the time of sentencing with the exception of the retail
fraud which resulted in a conviction by plea.

        The court noted that zero points had been allocated for offense variable (OV) 13 and that
10 points “could have [been] scored,” but that even with the addition of those 10 points the range
would be 2 to 17 months, essentially unchanged from the calculated range of 0 to 17 months. The
court determined that a departure from the guidelines range was warranted in light of defendant’s
“prior record and his out of control theft behavior” since relocating to Michigan. Observing that
the guidelines range for uttering and publishing, the offense defendant had “actually committed,”
would be 9 to 22 months, the court sentenced defendant to 21-60 months’ imprisonment. The
court denied defendant’s subsequent motion for resentencing.

                                          II. ANALYSIS

        Defendant argues that he is entitled to resentencing because the trial court abused its
discretion when it departed from the applicable sentencing guidelines range. Defendant contends
that, because OV 13 already accounts for a pattern of criminal conduct but was not scored, the trial
court abused its discretion when it justified the departure sentence on the basis of his criminal
history. We disagree.

        We review a sentence that departs from the applicable sentencing guidelines range for
reasonableness. People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358, 392; 870 NW2d 502 (2015). “[T]he standard
of review to be applied by appellate courts reviewing a sentence for reasonableness on appeal is
abuse of discretion.” People v Steanhouse, 500 Mich 453, 471; 902 NW2d 327 (2017) (Steanhouse
II). “A trial court abuses its sentencing discretion when the sentence imposed by the trial court is
disproportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances involving the offense and the offender.”
People v Dixon-Bey, 340 Mich App 292, 296; 985 NW2d 904 (2022) (Dixon-Bey II). Additionally,
“[t]he existence of a departure factor is a factual question reviewed for clear error on appeal.” Id.

                                                -2-
Clear error is present when this Court “is left with a definite and firm conviction that an error
occurred.” People v McChester, 310 Mich App 354, 358; 873 NW2d 646 (2015).

        When a trial court imposes a departure sentence, it must “justify the sentence imposed in
order to facilitate appellate review,” Lockridge, 498 Mich at 392, and explain “why the sentence
imposed is more proportionate to the offense and the offender than a different sentence would have
been,” People v Dixon-Bey, 321 Mich App 490, 525; 909 NW2d 458 (2017) (Dixon-Bey I)
(quotation marks and citation omitted). In reviewing a departure sentence, this Court “must
evaluate whether reasons exist to depart from the sentencing guidelines and whether the extent of
the departure can satisfy the principle of proportionality.” People v Steanhouse (On Remand), 322
Mich App 233, 239; 911 NW2d 253 (2017) (Steanhouse I) (emphasis omitted), vacated in part on
other grounds 504 Mich 969 (2019). If a trial court’s reasons for departure are unclear, the
appellate court “cannot substitute its own judgment about why the departure was justified.” People
v Smith, 482 Mich 292, 304; 754 NW2d 284 (2008). “Nor may [the appellate court] speculate
about conceivable reasons for departure that the trial court did not articulate or that cannot
reasonably be inferred from what the trial court articulated.” Id. at 318.

        OV 13 addresses a continuing pattern of criminal behavior. MCL 777.43(1). This includes
“all crimes within a 5-year period, including the sentencing offense, . . . regardless of whether the
offense resulted in a conviction.” MCL 777.43(2)(a). A trial court is required to assess 10 points
for OV 13 if “[t]he offense was part of a pattern of felonious criminal activity involving a
combination of 3 or more crimes against a person or property . . . .” MCL 777.43(1)(d). If 10
points had been assessed for OV 13, defendant’s total OV score would change from 2 to 12 points,
which would place defendant in OV Level II instead of Level I. MCL 777.69. Accordingly, as
the trial court correctly acknowledged, if 10 points had been assessed for OV 13, defendant’s
applicable guidelines range would change from 0 to 17 months to 2 to 17 months. MCL 777.69.

        A defendant’s extensive criminal history and likelihood to reoffend are appropriate
considerations in support of a departure sentence. People v Odom, 327 Mich App 297, 318; 933
NW2d 719 (2019). At sentencing, the trial court stated that 10 points could have been scored for
OV 13 but doing so would not meaningfully change the guidelines range. More important, it is
clear from the court’s comments that it would still have departed from either guidelines range—
both of which were 17 months on the high end. Although OV 13 would have accounted for three
of the offenses defendant committed within a five-year period, MCL 777.43(1)(d); MCL
777.43(2)(a), the trial court believed that OV 13 would not have accounted for the extent of
defendant’s criminal record and how soon the defendant began reoffending after being released
from a lengthy prison sentence.

                                                -3-
       Additionally, a trial court is permitted to rely on a plea bargain and the charges that were
dismissed when fashioning a sentence. People v Coulter, 205 Mich App 453, 456; 517 NW2d 827
(1994). Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined the extent of the
departure sentence on the basis of the guidelines for the dismissed uttering and publishing charge.

       Affirmed.

                                                             /s/ Michael F. Gadola
                                                             /s/ Christopher M. Murray
                                                             /s/ Allie Greenleaf Maldonado

                                                -4-