933 N.W.2d 314
Mich. Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant Rogan Lampe appealed a sentence that fell outside the Michigan sentencing guidelines; the opinion is a concurrence by Judge Boonstra explaining terminology and review standards.
- The concurrence argues that since the Michigan Supreme Court in Lockridge declared the guidelines advisory, the traditional term “departure” (which implied mandatory guidelines and a substantial-and-compelling standard) is outdated.
- Judge Boonstra urges using the term “out-of-guidelines sentence” instead of “departure” to reflect that courts now exercise advisory, discretionary sentencing.
- The concurrence emphasizes that Lockridge and Steanhouse require appellate review for reasonableness and proportionality, not adherence to the guidelines or articulation of the extent of any deviation.
- The concurrence reiterates trial courts must consult and take the guidelines into account and must justify their sentence to facilitate appellate review by explaining why it is more proportionate than alternatives.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate terminology for sentences outside guidelines | Use traditional term “departure” | Use “out-of-guidelines sentence” because guidelines are advisory | Use “out-of-guidelines sentence”; “departure” is outdated |
| Standard for appellate review of out-of-guidelines sentences | Review for substantial-and-compelling reasons and extent of departure | Review for reasonableness/proportionality under Lockridge and Steanhouse | Review for reasonableness/proportionality; no substantial-and-compelling standard |
| Whether trial courts must articulate extent of deviation | Yes, to justify extent of departure | No, only justification that sentence is proportionate | No requirement to articulate extent of deviation; must explain proportionality |
| Effect of an out-of-guidelines sentence on presumption of reasonableness | Out-of-guidelines sentences may be presumptively unreasonable | No presumption; must be assessed for proportionality | No presumption of unreasonableness; assess proportionality/reasonableness |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (sentencing guidelines are advisory; appellate review for reasonableness)
- People v Steanhouse, 500 Mich 453 (reasonableness review governed by proportionality principle)
- People v Milbourn, 425 Mich 630 (proportionality is the key test for sentencing)
- People v Dixon-Bey, 321 Mich App 490 (trial court must justify out-of-guidelines sentence to facilitate appellate review)
- People v Smith, 482 Mich 292 (discussed prior requirement to articulate extent of departure)
- United States v Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (federal precedent describing advisory guidelines framework)