Opinion
SC: 159279 COA: 333852
11-08-2019
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kesia Dionna MALONE, Defendant-Appellant.
Order
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 17, 2019 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals, VACATE the sentence of the Kent Circuit Court, and REMAND this case to the trial court for resentencing. The trial court did not justify its sentence with appropriate reasons. Sentencing courts must consult the applicable guidelines range and take it into account when imposing a sentence and justify the sentence imposed, see People v. Lockridge , 498 Mich. 358, 392, 870 N.W.2d 502 (2015), but nothing in the record suggests the trial court considered the defendant’s applicable range.
We do not retain jurisdiction.
Markman, J., (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from this Court’s order peremptorily reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanding Kesia Dionna Malone’s case for resentencing. The trial court, in support of imposing a sentence tied to the statutory maximum for first-degree retail fraud, cited Malone’s criminal history and the fact that she was serving two probation sentences when she committed her instant offense. Malone’s criminal record--21 convictions, 11 of which are for various degrees of retail fraud--speaks for itself. That shortly before her instant offense Malone received lenient sentences on a pair of convictions for first-degree retail fraud as a fourth-offense habitual offender and that she was on probation at the time of her instant offense also speaks for itself. Additionally, although not relied upon by the trial court, the then 35-year-old Malone involved a 16-year-old in her theft of over a thousand dollars' worth of alcohol. Considering Malone’s offense history and the facts of her instant offense, Malone fits exactly the profile of an offender the Legislature likely envisioned in setting the maximum term of imprisonment for the offense of first-degree retail fraud. Although the trial court should have expressly laid out and assessed defendant’s guidelines minimum sentence range, defendant failed to object, thus subjecting the error to "plain error" review. People v. Carines , 460 Mich. 750, 763-764, 597 N.W.2d 130 (1999). And because of defendant’s record of extreme recidivism and the need to better protect the public by her incapacitation, defendant simply cannot satisfy the prejudice prong of plain-error review, and I would not expend further judicial resources by remanding this case for resentencing. But although I dissent from this Court’s order, I do encourage the trial court on remand to engage in a more focused and specific explanation of its sentence.
Zahra, J., joins the statement of Markman, J.