People of Michigan v. Telvin Martin White, 353007

Defendant (Telvin White) was stopped after a reported robbery; police found a loaded pistol under the driver’s seat of his car. He was charged with armed robbery, carrying a concealed weapon, and felony‑firearm.
At a bench trial the court directed a verdict of acquittal on armed robbery and felony‑firearm, but convicted defendant of carrying a concealed weapon (MCL 750.227).
The trial court sentenced defendant to 40–60 months’ imprisonment (an upward departure from the guidelines range of 0–9 months), explaining concerns about repeated reoffending, HYTA status/habitual offender implications, and stating the court believed defendant committed the acquitted robbery.
Defendant argued on appeal that the upward departure was disproportionate and that the court impermissibly relied on acquitted conduct and previously scored prior crimes in imposing sentence.
The Court of Appeals held the trial court plainly erred by relying on acquitted conduct (violating People v Beck) and also failed to explain why the maximum sentence was necessary or proportional, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing limited to explanation of the necessity and proportionality of the maximum departure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court impermissibly relied on acquitted conduct when imposing an upward departure sentence	The court permissibly considered recidivism, HYTA/habitual concerns, and rehabilitation potential; any mention of the robbery did not control the sentence	The court relied on acquitted conduct (it stated it believed defendant committed the robbery), violating due process and Beck	The court plainly erred: referencing acquitted offense in sentencing violated Beck; sentencing vacated and remanded
Whether the extent of the upward departure (statutory‑maximum 40–60 months) was justified and proportionate	The court’s statement that prison would better serve defendant and society justified departure	The court failed to explain why the maximum sentence was necessary or proportionate; inadequate explanation requires resentencing under Smith/Milbourn	The court failed to justify the extent of the departure; resentencing required with explanation why maximum is necessary and proportionate

Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (advisory guidelines; upward departures reviewed for reasonableness)
Steanhouse, 500 Mich 453 (abuse of discretion standard for reasonableness review)
Milbourn, 435 Mich 630 (principle of proportionality for sentencing)
Walden, 319 Mich App 344 (permissible factors courts may consider when departing from guidelines)
Smith, 482 Mich 292 (trial court must justify extent of departure)
Beck, 504 Mich 605 (trial court may not rely on acquitted conduct in sentencing)
Carines, 460 Mich 750 (plain‑error test for unpreserved appellate issues)
Babcock, 469 Mich 247 (recidivism supports greater punishment; framework for proportionality)
Dixon‑Bey, 321 Mich App 490 (sentencing court must justify sentence to facilitate appellate review)
Heft, 299 Mich App 69 (unpreserved sentencing claims reviewed for plain error affecting substantial rights)