People of Michigan v. Monica Marie Stevens
328097
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 29, 2016Background
- Defendant Monica Stevens was convicted by a jury of third-offense operating while intoxicated (OUIL-3rd) after being found slumped in the driver’s seat of her car in a ditch with a measured BAC of .25.
- Stevens claimed she was driven to the scene by her ex-husband and had no memory of driving; the jury rejected that defense.
- The Department of Corrections initially scored mandatory-guidelines range at 0–13 months; the trial court departed upward and sentenced Stevens to 22–90 months’ imprisonment.
- The trial court explained the upward departure by citing multiple prior OUIL convictions (five prior OUILs, a dismissed sixth), a very high BAC, repeated failures to rehabilitate despite prior treatment and sanctions, and the defendant’s lack of remorse.
- The trial court also ordered Stevens to pay $774 in unspecified court costs without articulating a factual basis tying those costs to actual court expenses.
- Because sentencing occurred before the Michigan Supreme Court’s Lockridge decision, the Court of Appeals remanded for a proportionality (Milbourn) review under the Crosby procedure and for the trial court to provide a factual basis for costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of upward departure sentence imposed pre-Lockridge | Trial court’s stated aggravating factors justify upward departure from guidelines | Departure must be reviewed for proportionality under Milbourn because Lockridge later made guidelines advisory | Remand required for Crosby/Milbourn proportionality review; trial court did not apply Milbourn standard on record |
| Applicability of Lockridge to pre-Lockridge departures | N/A (prosecution accepted remand) | Defendant entitled to opportunity for resentencing review consistent with Lockridge/Crosby/Steanhouse | Court follows Steanhouse: remand for resentencing procedure despite trial court’s thorough reasons |
| Imposition of court costs under MCL 769.1k | Court costs imposed as part of sentence | Costs invalid without factual basis showing they are reasonably related to actual trial-court costs | Remand for trial court to articulate factual basis for $774 in court costs |
| Whether trial-court reasoning sufficed to avoid plain-error review | Trial court’s detailed reasons support the sentence | Defendant argues pre-Lockridge process requires remand regardless of record detail | Court cannot presume same analysis would occur under Milbourn; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (explains guidelines advisory post-severance and directs reasonableness review)
- People v Steanhouse, 313 Mich App 1 (requires Crosby/Milbourn remand for pre-Lockridge departure sentences)
- People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630 (establishes proportionality standard for sentences)
- United States v Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir.) (procedure for remand when sentencing law changes)
- People v Konopka (On Remand), 309 Mich App 345 (trial courts must state factual basis tying costs to actual court expenses)