People of Michigan v. Douglas Paul Guffey, 329869

Defendant Douglas Paul Guffey was convicted by a jury in 2013 of multiple counts of first-, second-, and fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct; initial sentences were imposed above the guidelines range.
This Court previously affirmed the convictions but vacated sentencing for a scoring error and remanded; on resentencing the trial court again imposed departure sentences for first-degree CSC (156–360 months), above the guidelines range (81–135 months).
After resentencing, Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals decisions changed the standard for reviewing departure sentences (Lockridge and Steanhouse), adopting a reasonableness review rooted in Milbourn’s proportionality principle.
The People conceded that remand was required for reconsideration of the departure sentences under the new reasonableness standard.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions but remanded for a Crosby-style remand so the trial court can reconsider sentences under Milbourn/Steanhouse; the Court denied defendant’s request to assign a different judge on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentencing departures must be reconsidered under the Lockridge/Steanhouse reasonableness standard	Concedes remand is required for reconsideration under the reasonableness standard rooted in Milbourn	Argues the departure sentences are unreasonable and must be vacated or reduced	Court: Affirmed convictions; remanded for Crosby remand and resentencing consideration under Milbourn/Steanhouse (reasonableness)
Whether the case should be reassigned to a different judge on remand	Did not seek reassignment; agreed remand for legal standard compliance	Requested reassignment, arguing prior judge’s comments showed inability to be impartial on resentencing	Court: Denied reassignment—no evidence of personal bias and reassignment not warranted under Evans/Cain factors

People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015) (held that sentencing departures are reviewed for reasonableness rather than under a mandatory "substantial and compelling" rubric)
People v Steanhouse, 313 Mich App 1 (2015) (adopted Milbourn proportionality principle as the reasonableness standard and called for Crosby remands when trial courts were unaware of that standard)
People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630 (1990) (established the principle of proportionality for sentencing: sentence must be proportionate to seriousness of offense and offender)
United States v Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005) (procedure for remand to determine effect of a sentencing-law error)
Cain v Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 451 Mich 470 (1996) (standards for judicial disqualification—requires actual personal bias to disqualify)