People of Michigan v. Mohammad Masroor, 322282

Background

Mohammad Masroor was convicted of 15 counts of criminal sexual conduct (10 CSC-I, 5 CSC-II) involving three victims under age 13 who were his blood relatives; he also had similar allegations involving his five children.
Original guidelines calculation produced a recommended minimum range of 108–180 months; the trial court imposed upward departure minimum terms of 35–50 years on each CSC-I count.
On initial appeal (Masroor I) the Court of Appeals reviewed under the Milbourn proportionality framework but remanded for a Crosby hearing per Steanhouse I; the Michigan Supreme Court in Steanhouse II rejected mandatory Crosby remands for upward departures and directed appellate reasonableness review under Milbourn.
On remand, the Court of Appeals reviewed whether the trial court’s upward departures were proportionate and the extent of the departures justified under Milbourn, Smith, and related precedent.
The trial court explained its departures by identifying (a) PRV/OV scoring deficiencies given multiple victims and repeated penetrations, (b) the offender–victim relationships (uncle, religious leader/teacher), (c) predatory conduct and lack of remorse, and (d) the seriousness reflected by subsequent statutory changes imposing lengthy mandatory minimums.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the upward departures were reasonable/proportionate under Milbourn	Trial court provided adequate, articulated reasons showing guidelines undercounted seriousness; sentences are proportionate	Departures are excessive compared to guidelines and require remand for Crosby/resentencing	Affirmed: departures were justified and proportionate under Milbourn/Smith; no Crosby remand required
Whether a Crosby remand was required because trial court lacked Milbourn guidance at sentencing	Prosecutor: Crosby remand unnecessary for upward departures; appellate reasonableness review suffices	Masroor: trial court’s unawareness of the reasonableness standard required Crosby remand	Supreme Court and this panel: Crosby remand not required for upward departures; review for abuse of discretion under proportionality is appropriate
Whether trial court adequately justified the extent of the departure (linking reasons to amount of departure)	Reasons tied to objective facts (multiple victims, repeated penetrations, role as religious leader, lack of remorse) and comparable grid placement explained extent	Defendant: extent of departure (133%+ over guideline minimum) is disproportionate	Held: trial court adequately connected facts to degree of departure; methodology (comparing hypothetical grid placement) comported with Smith
Whether guideline variable scoring error or insufficiency undermined departure	Court: PRV/OV variables did not capture multiple victims, repeated penetrations, predatory pattern, and broader criminal history; increasing scores would push offender into much higher cell	Defendant: some factors overlapped guideline variables; departure double-counted	Held: court reasonably found guidelines inadequately embodied key aggravating facts (relationship, predatory course, lack of remediation), justifying departure

Key Cases Cited

People v Milbourn, 435 Mich. 630 (principle of proportionality; departures appropriate where guidelines inadequately reflect offense/offender)
People v Steanhouse, 500 Mich. 453 (review under Milbourn; rejecting Crosby remand for upward departures)
People v Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358 (advisory guidelines framework informing Crosby/Lockridge context)
People v Smith, 482 Mich. 292 (requirement that trial court articulate adequate reasons and explain extent of departure)
People v Babcock, 469 Mich. 247 (appellate review requires trial court articulation to permit effective review)