People of Michigan v. Samer Nachaat Salami
323073
Mich. Ct. App.Dec 19, 2017Background
- Defendant Samer N. Salami was sentenced by a trial court to a departure sentence that exceeded the Michigan sentencing guidelines range.
- At sentencing, the trial court relied in part on speculation about possible future federal charges and expressed displeasure with the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
- The Court of Appeals initially reviewed the sentence; the Michigan Supreme Court later ordered plenary review under the Milbourn proportionality standard and Steanhouse guidance and remanded to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals held that the trial court improperly based its departure sentence on speculative federal prosecution and non-record considerations unrelated to the seriousness of the offense or offender.
- The appellate court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, instructing the trial court to apply the proportionality test and permissible departure factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the departure sentence was reasonable under the Milbourn proportionality principle | Salami (People) argued the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness and warranted | Salami (defendant) argued sentence was excessive and improperly based on speculation | Court held the sentence was not proportionate; vacated and remanded for resentencing |
| Whether speculative federal charges may be considered for departure | Prosecution relied on trial court’s stated concern about federal charges as relevant to sentencing | Defense argued such speculation is improper and not part of the record | Court held speculation about federal charges and displeasure with federal prosecutors are improper considerations |
| What standard governs appellate review of departure sentences | Prosecution urged continued deference to trial court within Lockridge/Steanhouse framework | Defense urged review for abuse of discretion under proportionality | Court applied abuse-of-discretion review focused on whether the trial court violated the principle of proportionality |
| What factors are proper for resentencing | Prosecution pointed to seriousness, repeated/calculated nature of crimes as supporting a higher sentence | Defense emphasized guidelines, factors like misconduct in custody, remorse, rehabilitation potential | Court instructed trial court to consider guidelines, whether guidelines reflect seriousness, unconsidered factors, factors given inadequate weight, and other appropriate statutory factors (misconduct in custody, remorse, rehabilitation) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Milbourn, 435 Mich. 630 (principle of proportionality governs sentencing)
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358 (advisory status of guidelines; requirement to consult guidelines)
- People v Steanhouse, 500 Mich. 453 (clarified appellate review: abuse of discretion assessing proportionality)
- People v Smith, 482 Mich. 292 (guidelines provide objective guideposts to ensure similar sentences)
- People v Houston, 448 Mich. 312 (factors for departure: seriousness, unconsidered factors, inadequate weight to guideline factors)