People v. Anderson
298 Mich. App. 178
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Defendant convicted of burning a dwelling, acquitted of two counts of attempted murder, for setting fire to his parents' home while they slept.
- Trial court sentenced defendant to 10 to 20 years in prison; defendant appeals solely on sentencing issues.
- Issue primarily concerns the scoring of PRV 6 (prior relationship to the criminal justice system) and whether defendant’s juvenile probation constitutes such a relationship.
- Trial court departed upward from the guidelines, articulating six reasons: planning/deliberation, terrorizing victims, failure to assist, injuries, psychological harm, and public safety.
- Court analyzes each departure rationale for objectivity, verifiability, and whether the reasons are supported by the record and PSIR; several reasons deemed improper, others upheld.
- Court ultimately affirms the sentence, finding that, even if some reasons were legally flawed, sufficient valid reasons supported the departure and the same sentence would have been imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| PRV 6 scoring valid for juvenile probation | Defendant argues juvenile status negates parole/probation relationship. | Defendant contends no criminal-justice relationship due to juvenile proceedings being non-criminal. | Probation (juvenile) counts; scoring sustained |
| Validity of upward departure reasons | The court provided substantial and compelling, objective reasons to depart. | Some reasons were improper or not objective/verifiable. | Court's departure supported by valid, objective factors; affirmed |
| Use of planning/deliberation as departure basis | Planning and deliberation justify departure beyond guidelines. | Planning is inherent to arson; not a separate substantial reason. | Planning/deliberation properly used as objective, verifiable basis |
| Terrorizing victims and failures to assist as departure bases | Evidence of intent to terrorize and lack of assistance support departure. | These are not objective or verifiable external facts. | Certain terrorization/failure-to-assist assertions rejected as non-objective; others considered in aggregate with other valid reasons |
| Public safety and future dangerousness as departure bases | Escalating violence and lack of rehabilitative benefit justify departure. | Future dangerousness must be based on objective, verifiable facts. | Court properly relied on objective, verifiable facts to support departure |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Smith, 482 Mich 292 (2008) (requirements for objective, verifiable reasons to depart)
- People v. Babcock, 469 Mich 247 (2003) (abuse of discretion standard in departure; whether reasons would yield same outcome)
- People v. Gonzalez, 256 Mich App 212 (2003) (use of PSIR/testimony as objective basis for departure)
- People v. Horn, 279 Mich App 31 (2008) (objective and verifiable factors for future dangerousness)
- People v. Armstrong, 247 Mich App 423 (2001) (consideration of psychological injuries within context of family victims)
- People v. Cline, 276 Mich App 634 (2007) (risk of non-objective factors; need for verifiable evidence)
- In re Carey, 241 Mich App 222 (2000) (juvenile proceedings analogized to adversary process for CJ relationship)
- People v. Harverson, 291 Mich App 171 (2010) (juvenile adjudications constitute criminal activity for PRV purposes)