Background
A jury convicted Evan Taylor Armogeda of assault with intent to commit murder, carrying a dangerous weapon with unlawful intent, and third-degree fleeing and eluding. Based on a calculated minimum-sentence guidelines range of 270 to 450 months for the assault conviction, the trial court imposed a controlling sentence of 360 to 600 months’ imprisonment.
Armogeda moved to correct an invalid sentence, challenging the scoring of Prior Record Variable 2 and Offense Variable 12. Rather than resolve the scoring dispute, the trial court ruled that 360 months was the lowest appropriate minimum sentence and that it would impose that sentence under either proposed range. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence but remanded for correction of the scoring and presentence investigation report. On remand, the parties stipulated that the proper range was 171 to 285 months, leaving Armogeda’s 360-month minimum above the corrected range.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in part and remanded for resentencing. Chief Justice Megan K. Cavanagh’s majority opinion, joined by Justices Welch, Bolden, Thomas, and Hood, held that when a sentencing court relies on an incorrectly calculated guidelines range and the sentence exceeds the corrected range, the defendant is entitled to resentencing even if the trial court previously said it would impose the same sentence.
The majority reaffirmed People v. Francisco and held that it remains compatible with Michigan’s advisory-guidelines system under People v. Lockridge. Although the guidelines are advisory, courts must accurately score them, calculate the applicable range, and consider that range when selecting a sentence. On remand, the trial court may impose the same sentence if it concludes that the sentence is reasonable and proportionate, but it must reconsider the sentence using the corrected range and articulate reasons for any departure.
Justice Richard H. Bernstein concurred in the decision to reverse and remand but dissented from the majority’s decision to reaffirm Francisco, reasoning that accurate-information and appellate-review principles resolved the case without reaching Francisco’s continued validity. Justice Brian K. Zahra dissented and favored a Crosby/Lockridge remand, under which the trial court would first decide whether the corrected information would produce a different sentence, with full resentencing required only if it would.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant must be resentenced when the sentencing court relied on an incorrect guidelines range and the original sentence exceeds the corrected range.
- A trial court’s statement that it would impose the same sentence does not avoid resentencing when the sentence falls outside the properly calculated range.
- Michigan’s guidelines remain advisory, but accurate scoring, calculation, and consideration of the applicable range are mandatory.
- The trial court may reimpose the same sentence after resentencing if it is reasonable and proportionate and the court explains any departure from the corrected range.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Francisco remains operative after Lockridge and that advisory guidelines still serve as a required sentencing benchmark. A court cannot preserve a sentence above the corrected range merely by declaring that a scoring error would not have affected its decision.
The divided opinions also expose disagreement over the proper remedy. The majority required resentencing, while Justice Bernstein questioned the need to reaffirm Francisco and Justice Zahra would have used a more limited procedure to determine whether full resentencing was necessary.