People of Michigan v. Darwin Eugene Moore
326663
| Mich. Ct. App. | Aug 11, 2016Background
- Defendant Darwin Eugene Moore was convicted of four counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct for sexually abusing his biological daughter and exploiting family relationships over many years.
- On remand from a prior appeal, the trial court resentenced Moore under the former judicial sentencing guidelines applicable because the offenses occurred before legislative guideline changes.
- The trial court sentenced Moore to 47–85 years on each first-degree CSC conviction and 10–15 years on the second-degree CSC conviction, and designated him a second-offense habitual offender in the judgment of sentence.
- Moore contended on appeal that sentencing relied on inaccurate information: (1) his prior record variables (PRV) were misclassified at level D and (2) he was erroneously treated as a third-offense habitual offender.
- Moore also argued that his sentence was disproportionate to the offense and offender, invoking the judicial guidelines range for proportionality.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed unpreserved claims for plain error and reviewed proportionality for abuse of discretion; it affirmed, finding no plain error and no abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing relied on inaccurate PRV classification | State relied on PRV score placing Moore at level D | Moore argued PRV placement at level D was erroneous | Waiver by defense agreed to PRV D; PRV score of 50 points was uncontested, so no error |
| Whether Moore was sentenced as a third-offense habitual offender | State treated Moore as second-offense habitual offender in judgment | Moore argued SIR notation showed third-offense habitual offender | Judgment of sentence and court record show second-offense status; SIR notation was clerical — no plain error |
| Whether sentence was disproportionate | State argued sentence reflected seriousness of repeated sexual abuse and family exploitation | Moore relied on guidelines range to argue disproportionality | Court may not use judicial guidelines to judge habitual-offender proportionality; given offense facts, sentence not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (establishes plain-error standard of review)
- People v LaFountain, 495 Mich. 968 (defense waiver of a claim at sentencing)
- People v Jones, 203 Mich. App. 74 (courts speak through their written judgments)
- People v Milbourn, 435 Mich. 630 (abuse-of-discretion review and proportionality principle)
- People v Houston, 448 Mich. 312 (focus of proportionality inquiry on seriousness rather than guideline deviation)
- People v Gatewood (On Remand), 216 Mich. App. 559 (limitations on using judicial guidelines to review habitual-offender sentences)
- People v Edgett, 220 Mich. App. 686 (prohibition on using underlying sentencing guidelines as a reference for habitual-offender proportionality)