Regardless of whether a criminal case involves judicial fact-finding, sentencing guidelines are always advisory, said the Court of Appeals in People v. Rice, No. 329502. Interpreting the Michigan Supreme Court’s opinion in People v. Lockridge, the Court held that a judge may always reduce a sentence beyond the lower limit of the sentencing guidelines.
In Rice, the prosecution appealed the trial court’s decision to give a fourth-offense habitual offender “concurrent terms of 48 months’ to 35 years’ imprisonment.” The defendant pled guilty to operating a methamphetamine laboratory near a specified location, which triggered a minimum 72-month imprisonment under the Michigan sentencing guidelines. The prosecution relied on the 2015 Michigan Supreme Court decision in Lockridge—which held Michigan’s sentencing guidelines unconstitutional and only advisory—to argue that because the case did not require any judicial fact-finding, the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing the defendant to less than 72 months.
The Michigan Court of Appeals disagreed. It interpreted Lockridge as having rewritten MCL 769.34(2) and (3) based on a finding that Michigan’s mandatory sentencing guidelines violated a defendant’s Sixth Amendment fundamental right to a jury trial. The Rice Court noted that Lockridge did not limit its holding to cases requiring judicial fact-finding. Rather, the Court of Appeals said that Lockridge addressed “the entire scheme and system of [sentencing guidelines in] MCL 769.34.”
This decision clears the way for trial judges to deviate from the sentencing guidelines in any criminal case. Consequently, the Court of Appeals concluded that the “trial court properly held that the Legislative sentencing guidelines are advisory in every case, regardless of whether the case actually involves judicial fact-finding.” The Court upheld the defendant’s sentence.
