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. The trial court calculated a recommended minimum-sentence range of 270 to 450 months for the assault conviction and imposed a controlling sentence of 360 to 600 months.
Armogeda moved to correct his sentence, arguing that Prior Record Variable 2 and Offense Variable 12 had been scored incorrectly. Rather than resolve the scoring dispute, the trial court denied resentencing because it considered a 360-month minimum appropriate regardless of the correct range. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence but remanded to correct the scoring and presentence investigation report. On remand, the parties stipulated that both variables should receive zero points and that the correct range was 171 to 285 months, leaving Armogeda’s 360-month minimum above that range.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Supreme Court held that a defendant whose sentence was based on an incorrectly calculated guidelines range and exceeds the corrected range is entitled to resentencing, even when the trial court previously stated that it would impose the same sentence. The Court reaffirmed People v Francisco and concluded that its rule remains compatible with People v Lockridge, which made Michigan’s sentencing guidelines advisory.
Although the guidelines are advisory, sentencing courts must accurately score them, calculate the applicable range, and consider that range when choosing a sentence. The trial court therefore erred by declining to resolve the scoring issues and reconsider the sentence using accurate information, and the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the sentence before the correct range was determined. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in part and remanded for resentencing.
On remand, the trial court must calculate and consider the corrected guidelines range but may impose the same sentence if it finds that sentence reasonable and proportionate. If it again departs from the guidelines, it must articulate reasons justifying the departure.
Key Takeaways
- Michigan’s advisory sentencing guidelines still must be accurately scored and considered at sentencing.
- A trial court’s statement that it would impose the same sentence does not avoid resentencing when the original sentence exceeds the corrected guidelines range.
- Resentencing does not guarantee a lower sentence; the court may reimpose the same reasonable and proportionate sentence after considering the correct range and explaining any departure.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Lockridge did not displace Francisco’s protection against sentencing based on an inaccurate guidelines range. Accurate scoring remains essential both to individualized sentencing and to meaningful appellate review, even though judges retain discretion to depart from the recommended range.
For practitioners, the opinion distinguishes between a harmless scoring error and one requiring resentencing: when an error changes the applicable range and the imposed minimum lies outside the corrected range, a prior assurance that the judge would select the same sentence is insufficient.