People of Michigan v. Andrew Farley Jr
331302
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 31, 2017Background
- Defendant killed his wife with a flashlight and knife; he confessed and attempted suicide shortly after.
- At trial, jury was instructed on first-degree premeditated murder, second-degree murder, and voluntary manslaughter; jury convicted of second-degree murder (no premeditation).
- Sentencing guidelines (as scored) produced OV total putting defendant in grid A-III with a recommended minimum of 162–270 months.
- Trial court imposed a minimum term of 600 months (50 years), a >27½-year upward departure, stating the judge believed the murder was premeditated despite the jury verdict.
- The sentencing judge relied on his factual finding of premeditation as the primary basis for the large departure; the judge also cited brutality, harm to the victim’s child, risk to neighbors, and alleged high recidivism risk.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a sentencing court may depart from the guidelines based on its own finding of premeditation contrary to the jury verdict | Court may make factual findings at sentencing and may rely on factors not adequately reflected in the guidelines to depart | MCL 777.36(2)(a) bars judicial findings about homicidal intent when jury decided intent; judge cannot rely on contrary finding to depart | Judge erred: may not base a departure on a judicial finding of premeditation inconsistent with the jury verdict under MCL 777.36(2)(a) |
| Whether the listed alternative factors justified the >100% upward departure | Factors (brutality, harm to child, risk to neighbors, recidivism) supported an exceptional sentence | Those factors were either scored in the guidelines or should have been scored; judge failed to explain objective basis beyond guideline scoring | Alternative factors insufficient as stated; court should have scored or explained them and cannot rely on them as stated to justify such a large departure |
| Whether OV 6 scoring may be altered by sentencing judge’s extra-record findings | Court can make sentencing findings when supported by information not presented to jury | OV 6 must be scored consistent with the jury verdict unless there is information not presented to jury | OV 6 here was properly scored consistent with the jury (unpremeditated intent); sentencing judge had no basis to change intent finding for scoring or to use contrary finding to depart |
| Whether remand for resentencing is required | Upheld departure as within discretion | Remand required because departure rested on improper basis and alternative grounds were inadequate | Remand for resentencing (court should rescore guidelines and, if departing, articulate lawful, adequate reasons) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Harverson, 291 Mich App 171 (court may score OVs for facts not reflected in the verdict in non-homicide contexts)
- People v Calloway, 500 Mich 180 (specific statutory provisions control over general ones)
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (guidelines advisory; must be consulted and considered)
- People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630 (proportionality principle and guidelines as starting point for departures)
- People v Grimmett, 388 Mich 590 (trial judge may not assume guilt on a different charge when sentencing)
- People v Hardy, 494 Mich 430 (analysis for OV 7 brutality scoring)
- People v Peltola, 489 Mich 174 (role of PRV scoring in assessing recidivism)
- People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247 (legislative purpose of sentencing guidelines to promote uniformity)