principle of proportionality standard in Michigan

2017ANALYSIS In Steanhouse II, our Supreme Court recognized that the principle of proportionality test in Milbourn has a lengthy jurisprudential history in our state and “reaffirmed the proportionality principle adopted in Milbourn and reaffirmed” in People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247 ; 666 NW2d 231 (2003) and Smith, 482 Mich 292 . 3 Steanhouse II, 500 Mich at 472-473.

2017ANALYSIS In Steanhouse II, our Supreme Court recognized that the principle of proportionality test in Milbourn has a lengthy jurisprudential history in our state and “reaffirmed the proportionality principle adopted in Milbourn and reaffirmed” in People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247 ; 666 NW2d 231 (2003) and Smith, 482 Mich 292 . 3 Steanhouse II, 500 Mich at 472-473.

2021Factors that may be considered under the principle of proportionality standard include, but are not limited to: (1) the seriousness of the offense; (2) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines; and (3) factors not considered by the guidelines, such as the relationship between the victim and the aggressor, the defendant’s misconduct -2- while in custody, the defendant’s expressions of remorse, and the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation. [Steanhouse III, 322 Mich App at 238-239 .] In reviewing a sentence, we must evaluate whether reasons exist that justify departure from

2019ANALYSIS “Under the principle of proportionality standard, a sentence must be ‘proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender.’ ” People v Steanhouse (On Remand), 322 Mich App 233, 238 ; 911 NW2d 253 (2017), quoting Milbourn, 435 Mich at 636 .

2021This Court -2- has summarized the principle of proportionality test in People v Dixon-Bey, 321 Mich App 490, 525 ; 909 NW2d 458 (2017): [R]elevant factors for determining whether a departure sentence is more proportionate than a sentence within the guidelines range continue to include (1) whether the guidelines accurately reflect the seriousness of the crime; (2) factors not considered by the guidelines; and (3) factors considered by the guidelines but given inadequate weight.

2021This Court -2- has summarized the principle of proportionality test in People v Dixon-Bey, 321 Mich App 490, 525 ; 909 NW2d 458 (2017): [R]elevant factors for determining whether a departure sentence is more proportionate than a sentence within the guidelines range continue to include (1) whether the guidelines accurately reflect the seriousness of the crime; (2) factors not considered by the guidelines; and (3) factors considered by the guidelines but given inadequate weight.

2018People v Houston, 448 Mich 312, 321-324 ; 532 NW2d 508 (1995).

2018People v Houston, 448 Mich 312, 321-324 ; 532 NW2d 508 (1995).

2018The Steanhouse Court held, in pertinent part, as follows: We repeat our directive from Lockridge that the guidelines “remain a highly relevant consideration in a trial court’s exercise of sentencing discretion” that trial courts “ ‘must consult’ ” and “ ‘take . . . into account when sentencing,’ ” Lockridge, 498 Mich at 391 , quoting [United States v Booker, 543 US 220, 264 ; 125 S Ct 738 ; 160 L Ed 2d 621 (2005)] and our holding from Milbourn that “the key test is whether the sentence is proportionate to the seriousness of the matter, not whether it departs from or adheres to the guidelines r

2018The Steanhouse Court held, in pertinent part, as follows: We repeat our directive from Lockridge that the guidelines “remain a highly relevant consideration in a trial court’s exercise of sentencing discretion” that trial courts “ ‘must consult’ ” and “ ‘take . . . into account when sentencing,’ ” Lockridge, 498 Mich at 391 , quoting [United States v Booker, 543 US 220, 264 ; 125 S Ct 738 ; 160 L Ed 2d 621 (2005)] and our holding from Milbourn that “the key test is whether the sentence is proportionate to the seriousness of the matter, not whether it departs from or adheres to the guidelines r

2017ANALYSIS The principle of proportionality standard set forth in Milbourn “requires a sentence ‘to be proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender.’ ” People v Masroor, 313 Mich App 358, 374 ; 880 NW2d 812 (2015), quoting Milbourn, 435 Mich at 636 , rev’d in part on other grounds by Steanhouse, ___ Mich at ___ (emphasis added).

2017ANALYSIS The principle of proportionality standard set forth in Milbourn “requires a sentence ‘to be proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender.’ ” People v Masroor, 313 Mich App 358, 374 ; 880 NW2d 812 (2015), quoting Milbourn, 435 Mich at 636 , rev’d in part on other grounds by Steanhouse, ___ Mich at ___ (emphasis added).

2017ANALYSIS In Steanhouse II, our Supreme Court recognized that the principle of proportionality test in Milbourn has a lengthy jurisprudential history in our state and “reaffirmed the proportionality principle adopted in Milbourn and reaffirmed” in People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247 ; 666 NW2d 231 (2003) and Smith, 482 Mich 292 . 3 Steanhouse II, 500 Mich at 472-473.

2017ANALYSIS In Steanhouse II, our Supreme Court recognized that the principle of proportionality test in Milbourn has a lengthy jurisprudential history in our state and “reaffirmed the proportionality principle adopted in Milbourn and reaffirmed” in People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247 ; 666 NW2d 231 (2003) and Smith, 482 Mich 292 . 3 Steanhouse II, 500 Mich at 472-473.

2017“Hence, appellate review of the sentence imposed is for abuse of discretion, to determine whether the sentence violates the principle of proportionality, which requires sentences imposed by the trial court to be proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender.” People v Hyatt, 316 Mich App 368, 423 ; 891 NW2d 549 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2017“Hence, appellate review of the sentence imposed is for abuse of discretion, to determine whether the sentence violates the principle of proportionality, which requires sentences imposed by the trial court to be proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender.” People v Hyatt, 316 Mich App 368, 423 ; 891 NW2d 549 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2016People v Steanhouse, 313 Mich App 1, 47-48 ; 880 NW2d 297 (2015), lv gtd 499 Mich 934 (2016).

2016This Court has also decided, in People v Masroor, 313 Mich App 358, 361 ; 880 NW2d 812 (2015), lv grt’d 499 Mich 934 (2016), that if it were not bound by the Steanhouse decision, it would adopt the federal “reasonableness” standard as articulated in Gall v United States, 552 US 38, 46 ; 128 S Ct 586 ; 169 L Ed 2d 445 (2007).

2016A sentence is deemed to be reasonable if it meets the principle of proportionality test as delineated in People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630 ; 461 NW2d 1 (1990), superseded as stated in Armisted, 295 Mich App at 32 .

2016This Court has also decided, in People v Masroor, 313 Mich App 358, 361 ; 880 NW2d 812 (2015), lv grt’d 499 Mich 934 (2016), that if it were not bound by the Steanhouse decision, it would adopt the federal “reasonableness” standard as articulated in Gall v United States, 552 US 38, 46 ; 128 S Ct 586 ; 169 L Ed 2d 445 (2007).

2016This Court has also decided, in People v Masroor, 313 Mich App 358, 361 ; 880 NW2d 812 (2015), lv grt’d 499 Mich 934 (2016), that if it were not bound by the Steanhouse decision, it would adopt the federal “reasonableness” standard as articulated in Gall v United States, 552 US 38, 46 ; 128 S Ct 586 ; 169 L Ed 2d 445 (2007).