People of Michigan v. Erick Steven Rhode, 329984

Erick Rhode pleaded guilty to third-offense operating while intoxicated (MCL 257.625(1)(a), (9)(c)); initially sentenced to 30 days jail (credit 2 days) and 60 months’ probation.
After a later probation violation conviction, probation was revoked and Rhode was resentenced on the underlying conviction to 18 months–5 years imprisonment (187 days credit).
A bench warrant for probation violation was issued December 12, 2013; Rhode had not reported to probation after release from jail on November 20, 2013 and had moved without notifying probation.
Rhode was arrested for a separate OUI on January 13, 2015; probation discovered the outstanding warrant thereafter and held a violation hearing within three months of that arrest.
Rhode argued his probation violation should be waived for lack of due diligence in executing the warrant; he also challenged the upward departure sentence and the factual basis for $372 probation fees and a $500 penal fine.
The Court affirmed the probation-violation conviction, ordered a Crosby hearing/remand related to the upward-departure sentence, and remanded for the trial court to establish factual/statutory support for assessed fees/fines.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Waiver for lack of due diligence in executing bench warrant	Probation authorities exercised due diligence; warrant valid	Authorities failed to execute warrant with reasonable dispatch, so violation waived	Held for plaintiff: no plain error; defendant’s evasion and unknown location defeated Ortman-style claim
Validity of upward-departure sentence after probation revocation	Trial court may revoke probation and resentenced; departure discretionary	Upward departure improper because post-Lockridge standards not applied	Held: sentence was discretionary but because departure was imposed under pre-Lockridge substantial-and-compelling rationale, remand for Crosby hearing required
Requirement to articulate substantial and compelling reasons for departure	Not required after Lockridge; court must consult guidelines and justify for appellate review	Defendant argued inadequate justification	Held for plaintiff on merits (no need for substantial/compelling reasons) but Crosby remand required for reasonableness review
Factual/statutory basis for costs, probation fees, and $500 fine	Fees/fine authorized or properly imposed	Trial court failed to state factual basis and conflicting oral vs. written statements	Held for defendant in part: remand to establish factual basis/statutory authority and to modify judgment of sentence if necessary

People v. Ortman, 209 Mich. App. 251 (probation-warrant due-diligence factors govern waiver of violation)
Lockridge v. Michigan, 498 Mich. 358 (sentencing guidelines advisory; courts must consult but need not apply substantial-and-compelling departure standard)
People v. Steanhouse, 313 Mich. App. 1 (Crosby remand required when departure was imposed under pre-Lockridge standard)
Carines v. People, 460 Mich. 750 (plain-error review standard for unpreserved claims)
Milbourn v. People, 435 Mich. 630 (principle of proportionality for sentence reasonableness)
U.S. v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (procedure governing remand when sentencing error identified)