People of Michigan v. Joshua Robert Witkowski
333675
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 12, 2017Background
- Defendant Joshua Witkowski lived with the victim’s mother and her three children; the victim (E.S.) was ~2½ at the time of injury.
- On December 17, 2012, E.S. became unresponsive after being left in a van during errands; emergency care revealed seizures, subdural hematoma, retinal hemorrhages, brain bruising, and multiple external bruises. Medical teams diagnosed pediatric physical abuse.
- Defendant was charged with first-degree child abuse but convicted of the lesser-included offense of second-degree child abuse and originally sentenced to a minimum of 71 months (top of guidelines range: 36–71 months).
- This Court previously affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing with instructions to score OV 19 at zero, which lowered the guidelines range to 29–57 months.
- At resentencing the trial court again imposed a 71-month minimum; the court explained it was departing because the guidelines did not adequately account for the extent and lifelong impact of E.S.’s injuries.
- Defendant appealed the upward departure as unreasonable and contended the trial court relied on factors already accounted for in the guidelines; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Witkowski) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the upward departure sentence was unreasonable under the Lockridge/Steanhouse proportionality standard | The sentence is reasonable; the court permissibly found the guidelines understate the severity and lifelong effects of the victim’s injuries | The court improperly relied on factors already reflected in the guidelines (e.g., OV 3, PRVs) and thus lacked adequate grounds for departure | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; departure justified because the guidelines did not adequately account for the severity and permanent impact of victim’s injuries |
| Whether the trial court impermissibly used defendant’s criminal history as a departure basis | The State relied primarily on victim-impact reasons, not criminal history | Witkowski argued criminal history is covered by PRVs and thus cannot justify departure | Court found record unclear that criminal history was used; in any event, victim’s severe injuries sufficed to justify departure |
| Whether failure to specifically mention OV 3 undermines the departure | The State maintained the court properly concluded the guidelines underrepresented the harm despite OV 3 scoring | Witkowski argued the court already accounted for the injuries via OV 3 and thus could not rely on the same facts to depart | Court held acknowledging that OV 3 covers physical injury, the trial court reasonably found the guidelines still underestimated the injury’s full physical and developmental impact |
| Whether defendant preserved an argument that the 71-month minimum itself is disproportionate | The State noted defendant did not argue the actual sentence was disproportionate on the merits | Witkowski challenged only the court’s reasons for departure, not the proportionality of the 71-month term itself | Court observed defendant failed to argue why the specific 71-month sentence is unreasonable; nonetheless, the reasons given support proportionality and no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358 (2015) (sentences reviewed for reasonableness; standard is abuse of discretion)
- Milbourn v. People, 435 Mich. 630 (1990) (proportionality principle: focus on seriousness of offense, not strict adherence to guidelines)
- People v Anderson, 298 Mich. App. 178 (2012) (departure reasonable where OV scoring did not adequately reflect prolonged severe victim harm)