People of Michigan v. Lavagas Drain, 327601

Defendant Lavagas Drain was convicted by a jury of carrying a concealed weapon, felon in possession of a firearm, and felony-firearm.
On remand from prior appeals, he was resentenced (April 21, 2015) as a fourth habitual offender to concurrent 15–25 year terms for CCW and felon-in-possession and a consecutive 2-year felony-firearm term.
At original sentencing the trial judge scored 75 PRV points and 5 OV points, placing defendant in the F‑I cell of the Class E felony grid and a guidelines minimum range of 9–46 months (as a fourth habitual offender).
The trial judge imposed a large upward departure and attempted to justify the 15–25 year minimum by citing defendant’s extensive criminal history (five prior felonies, multiple gun-related offenses) and applying arithmetic multipliers to guideline high-end ranges.
The Court of Appeals found the judge aware of and attempting to address Milbourn proportionality concerns post-remand, but concluded the judge’s mathematical/formulaic explanations were arbitrary and inadequate to justify the extent of the departure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 15–25 year departure sentence was reasonable under Lockridge reasonableness/Milbourn proportionality	State: trial court provided reasons tied to defendant’s record and the inadequacy of guidelines to reflect five prior felonies and multiple gun offenses	Drain: the departure was unreasonable, disproportionate to guidelines, and violated proportionality/cruel-and-unusual protections	The court held the extent of the departure was not adequately justified; resentencing required
Whether the trial judge’s use of arithmetic multipliers to justify the departure satisfied proportionality requirements	State: mathematical analogies showed how a longer term could be reached given defendant’s record	Drain: such formulaic calculations are arbitrary and not an acceptable proportionality explanation	The court rejected the arithmetic/formulaic method as insufficient to show proportionality
Whether the sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment	N/A	Drain raised Eighth Amendment and state-constitutional claims	Court did not decide Eighth Amendment claim because resentencing was required on other grounds
Whether resentencing must be before a different judge	N/A	Drain requested new judge	Moot — original sentencing judge retired; resentencing will be by a different judge

People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015) (holding Michigan sentencing guidelines advisory and adopting reasonableness review)
People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630 (1990) (establishing proportionality principle for departures)
People v Steanhouse, 313 Mich App 1 (2015) (describing remand procedure to review proportionality post-Lockridge)
People v Smith, 482 Mich 292 (2008) (trial court must explain why departure sentence is more proportionate than guideline sentence)
People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247 (2003) (trial court should explain why departure better reflects seriousness of offense and offender)
People v Johnigan, 265 Mich App 463 (2003) (statutory authority to impose a sentence does not alone show proportionality)