People of Michigan v. Shawn Marie Lavasseur
334876
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 7, 2017Background
- Defendant Shawn Marie Lavasseur was convicted after a bench trial of possession with intent to pass five or more pieces of counterfeit coin based on use of four counterfeit $20 bills and discovery of 11 counterfeit $20 bills in her purse.
- The sentencing guidelines recommended a minimum range of 0–9 months (county jail range).
- The trial court concluded Lavasseur was a serial thief with recent, successive retail-fraud convictions (three shoplifting/probation matters from mid–late 2015) and that probation had not deterred her.
- The court emphasized the seriousness of counterfeiting (noting it can carry a life sentence) and found the guidelines did not adequately reflect the offender’s recent escalating criminal history.
- The court imposed an upward departure sentence of 1½ to 10 years’ imprisonment (state prison) and explained it believed prison time was necessary for rehabilitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing an upward departure sentence | The prosecution argued the court reasonably relied on defendant’s recent, escalating criminal history and the serious nature of counterfeiting to justify prison time | Lavasseur argued the guidelines range was proper and departure was disproportionate and unsupported | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; departure was proportionate and adequately explained |
| Whether the guidelines inadequately accounted for offender’s recent conduct while on probation | Prosecutor: prior-record variables underweighted the fact that offenses occurred in quick succession while on probation | Defendant: prior-record scoring already accounted for criminal history; not a basis for upward departure without more | Court held the court reasonably found prior-record variables inadequately reflected the aggravating pattern of recidivism |
| Whether the trial court provided sufficient explanation linking reasons for departure to extent of departure | State: sentencing judge articulated the offender-specific reasons and need for prison to encourage rehabilitation | Defendant: asserted the court’s comments were conclusory and insufficient for appellate review | Court held the explanation was adequate for review and proportionality analysis |
| Whether the seriousness of the offense justified upward departure | Prosecutor: counterfeiting is a serious offense and guidelines’ jail-only range was inadequate here | Defendant: offense level under guidelines yielded appropriate sanction | Court agreed the offense’s seriousness, combined with offender history, supported departure |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358; 870 NW2d 502 (addressing review of guideline-based sentences after Sixth Amendment decision and reasonableness standard)
- People v Steanhouse, 500 Mich 453 (2017) (appellate standard: abuse of discretion and application of Milbourn proportionality)
- People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630; 461 NW2d 1 (framework for proportionality and when departures are appropriate)
- People v Smith, 482 Mich 292; 754 NW2d 284 (requirement that trial courts articulate why a specific departure is proportionate and how factors were weighed)
- People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247; 666 NW2d 231 (necessity of articulating reasons for departure to permit appellate review)
- People v Walden, 319 Mich App 344; 901 NW2d 142 (examples of factors relevant under proportionality post-Lockridge)