People of Michigan v. John Christopher-Charle Gaston, 334380

Defendant John Christopher-Charle Gaston was convicted by a jury of third-degree criminal sexual conduct for vaginal penetration of a 15‑year‑old family friend; DNA and medical exam evidence supported the conviction.
He was sentenced as a fourth habitual offender to 20–30 years; the Court of Appeals initially affirmed but remanded for resentencing due to improper scoring of OV 8.
The Michigan Supreme Court vacated the remand portion and directed reconsideration in light of People v Lockridge; on remand the Court of Appeals treated the OV 8 issue as a Francisco error and ordered resentencing with OV 8 scored at zero.
On resentencing the trial court imposed a minimum term of 190 months (within the guidelines range of 57–190 months); defendant appealed arguing the sentence was unreasonable and raising ineffective-assistance claims.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that (1) under MCL 769.34(10) a within‑guidelines minimum must be affirmed absent scoring error or inaccurate information, and (2) the ineffective-assistance claims at trial were outside the Supreme Court’s remand scope and sentencing counsel’s alleged failures were meritless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reasonableness of sentence	Sentence is within guidelines and should be affirmed under MCL 769.34(10)	190‑month minimum is disproportionate given defendant’s background and rehab efforts	Affirmed: within‑guidelines sentence must be upheld absent scoring error or inaccurate information; defendant did not show such an error
OV 8 scoring / remand scope	OV 8 was improperly scored originally; remand was required to correct scoring	Defendant contended sentence remained unreasonable after resentencing	On remand OV 8 set to zero; current appeal does not dispute scoring or inaccurate info, so sentence affirmed
Ineffective assistance at trial	N/A (claims outside remand scope)	Trial counsel ineffective (various trial errors)	Claims regarding trial counsel are outside the limited remand and are not considered here
Ineffective assistance at resentencing re: OVs 3 & 4	Sentencing counsel’s failure to object was not ineffective because prior appellate rulings upheld OV scores and record supported OV4	Defendant argued counsel should have objected to OV3/OV4 scoring	Denied: objections would have been meritless or futile; record (victim impact/PSI) supported OV4 and OV3 previously affirmed

People v Francisco, 474 Mich 82 (recognizing remand for resentencing when guidelines scoring lacks evidentiary support)
People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (addressing constitutional limits on judicial fact‑finding in guideline scoring)
People v Herron, 303 Mich App 392 (discussing judicial fact‑finding and guideline scoring; later considered in light of Lockridge)
People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630 (articulating proportionality principle for sentence reasonableness)
People v Steanhouse, 313 Mich App 1 (identifying factors for proportionality review)
People v Schrauben, 314 Mich App 181 (holding Lockridge did not alter MCL 769.34(10) review obligation)
Glover v. United States, 531 US 198 (prejudice analysis where counsel fails to argue for correct guidelines)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668 (establishing ineffective assistance standard)
People v Putman, 309 Mich App 240 (counsel not ineffective for failing to raise meritless objections)
People v Johnson, 298 Mich App 128 (trial court may consider PSI and other record evidence when scoring guidelines)
People v Endres, 269 Mich App 414 (prior rule on consideration of mitigating factors at sentencing)
People v Hardy, 494 Mich 430 (addressing appellate treatment of sentencing precedent)