Opinion
No. 124493.
February 27, 2004.
Leave to Appeal Denied.
No. 124493; Court of Appeals No. 248940.
Defendant pleaded no contest for his role in an armed robbery at a home. His sentence was enhanced because the victims were terrorized. However, defendant never entered the home or dealt personally with the victims, so he could not have engaged in terrorization.
One of the primary objectives of our sentencing guidelines is to impose greater punishment on the more culpable parties. Defendant is less culpable than his accomplices. However, the accomplices each received a lesser sentence than defendant did. Defendant's sentence erroneously reflected that he had engaged in terrorization. Because this error undermines the objectives of the sentencing guidelines and has prejudiced defendant, I would remand for resentencing.