People of Michigan v. Paul Anthony Plulik Jr, 350098

Defendant Paul Plulik pleaded guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine in December 2018 as part of a plea that dismissed other charges and reduced habitual-offender exposure.
The sentencing guidelines recommended a minimum range of 19–57 months; the trial court imposed an upward-departure minimum of 76 months (76–240 months total) and treated him as a third-offense habitual offender.
Prosecution emphasized an extensive criminal history: multiple manufacturing convictions, prior prison terms, probation/parole violations, and failures to pursue sustained treatment for addiction.
The trial court explained the departure by citing defendant’s repeated reoffending despite prior incarceration and outpatient treatment, the need for incapacitation to protect society, and the fact that the plea spared him greater maximum exposure.
The court also relied on dismissed and uncharged conduct tied to the plea agreement when justifying the upward departure.
Defendant appealed the sentence as an unreasonable and disproportionate upward departure; the Michigan Supreme Court remanded to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the upward departure sentence (76–240 months) was unreasonable/disproportionate	The People argued the departure was justified by defendant’s continuous, serious criminal history, probation/parole violations, failed rehabilitation, and need to protect society	Plulik argued the guidelines range (19–57 months) was the appropriate measure and the upward departure was disproportionate	Court held the departure was reasonable and proportionate given the court’s articulated factors and connection to extent of departure
Whether the trial court could consider dismissed or uncharged conduct and plea-related dismissals when departing	People argued courts may consider dismissed/uncharged conduct and the nature of plea bargains in sentencing	Plulik argued such conduct should not justify departure beyond guidelines	Court held consideration of dismissed/uncharged conduct and plea terms is permissible when supported by record

People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015) (guidelines are advisory but must be consulted)
People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630 (1990) (principle of proportionality for sentencing departures)
People v Dixon-Bey, 321 Mich App 490 (2017) (standards for appellate review of departure sentences)
People v Smith, 482 Mich 292 (2008) (sentencing court may consider facts underlying uncharged offenses and dismissed charges)
People v Armstrong, 305 Mich App 230 (2014) (dismissed or uncharged conduct may form basis for upward departure)
People v Steanhouse, 500 Mich 453 (2017) (Milbourn proportionality framework and reasonableness review)