Summary
In Harrington, the Michigan Supreme Court stated that the trial court "articulated a substantial and compelling reason for departing from the guidelines when imposing a sentence following a probation violation, but it failed to articulate any rationale to justify imposition of the longest possible minimum sentence."
Summary of this case from People v. HattenOpinion
Docket No. 142958.COA No. 302167.
2011-09-28
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff–Appellee,v.Brent Roy HARRINGTON, Defendant–Appellant.
Order
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 3, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Saginaw Circuit Court. The court articulated a substantial and compelling reason for departing from the guidelines when imposing a sentence following a probation violation, but it failed to articulate any rationale to justify imposition of the longest possible minimum sentence. People v. Smith, 482 Mich. 292, 754 N.W.2d 284 (2008). On remand, the court shall either issue an order that articulates why this level of departure is warranted, or resentence the defendant. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining
questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
We do not retain jurisdiction.