People of Michigan v. Wayne Robert Farren
326593
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 28, 2017Background
- Defendant Wayne Farren was convicted by a jury of accosting a child for immoral purposes, assault and battery, possession of <25 grams of cocaine, and attempted second-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC II).
- Facts: at a party Farren attempted sexual contact with a 12-year-old boy; a relative intervened, a fight occurred, officers found Farren bleeding and discovered cocaine on him.
- Farren had a juvenile adjudication and adult convictions for prior sexual offenses involving minors, which the presentence report described as showing he is a sexual predator.
- Trial court imposed upward departure sentences (including an upward departure on attempted CSC II); sentencing as a fourth-offense habitual offender.
- This Court initially affirmed the departure as proportionate but remanded for a Crosby proceeding; the Michigan Supreme Court reversed that remand and directed this Court to review proportionality under Milbourn.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the upward-departure sentence was reasonable under Milbourn’s proportionality principle | The prosecutor argued the minimum sentence was proportionate to the offender and offenses given Farren’s history and the seriousness of the attempt | Farren argued the upward departure was unreasonable under Lockridge and Milbourn | The Court held the departure sentence was reasonable and proportionate under Milbourn |
| Whether the trial court properly relied on prior convictions and pattern of sexually predatory conduct as grounds for departure | The prosecution contended the guidelines did not account for the specific nature of prior sexual offenses against minors | Farren contended the guidelines and PRVs already accounted for prior record and the departure was excessive | The Court held the trial court permissibly relied on the nature and pattern of prior offenses (not fully captured by PRVs) to justify departure |
| Whether the guidelines accurately reflected the seriousness of the offense (near-miss) | Prosecutor: the guidelines failed to account for the ‘‘near-miss’’—the child was spared only due to intervention | Farren: guidelines should govern and departure extent was unjustified | The Court held the near-miss nature was a valid factor not adequately reflected in the guidelines and supported departure |
| Whether the trial court provided adequate reasons for the extent of the departure | Prosecutor: trial court explained recurrence risk, pattern, and compared grids to gauge extent | Farren: reasons were insufficient under the proportionality standard | The Court held the trial court provided adequate, proportionate reasons and used an appropriate method to set the extent of departure |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630 (reaffirmed proportionality principle for discretionary sentencing)
- People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247 (reaffirmed Milbourn proportionality framework)
- People v Smith, 482 Mich 292 (trial courts may consult multiple grids when determining extent of departure)
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (guidelines rendered advisory; review for reasonableness)
- People v Steanhouse, 500 Mich 453 (clarified appellate review: proportionality under Milbourn, not automatic Crosby remand)
- People v Petri, 279 Mich App 407 (propensity evidence on prior sexual behavior may be admissible to show likelihood of similar offenses)
- People v Farren, 902 N.W.2d 606 (Mich.) (Supreme Court order remanding for appellate proportionality review)