From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Purnell

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
Nov 26, 2019
No. 346649 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2019)

Opinion

No. 346649

11-26-2019

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JONATHON LEDALE PURNELL, Defendant-Appellant.


If this opinion indicates that it is "FOR PUBLICATION," it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. UNPUBLISHED Ingham Circuit Court
LC No. 15-000957-FH Before: O'BRIEN, P.J., and GADOLA and REDFORD, JJ. PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals as of right his sentence following remand for his conviction of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder, MCL 750.84. The trial court imposed the sentence after remand by this Court for a redetermination regarding whether consecutive sentencing should apply. The trial court resentenced defendant to 100 to 240 months in prison, to be served consecutively to his sentence for two prior convictions. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

While in the Ingham County Jail awaiting trial on unrelated charges, defendant brutally assaulted another inmate causing him serious injury including the loss of sight in one eye. Defendant appealed his conviction and his sentence. This Court affirmed his conviction but remanded for the trial court's consideration whether to issue a consecutive or concurrent sentence. On remand, the trial court reconsidered defendant's sentence and calculated a minimum sentence range of 34 to 100 months under the statutory sentencing guidelines. The trial court reflected upon the underlying facts of the offense, defendant's criminal history, defendant's conduct while incarcerated, and permitted defendant to speak. The trial court explained its reasons for defendant's new sentence and ordered defendant to serve 100 months to 240 months imprisonment for his conviction to be served consecutively to sentences imposed by another judge for unrelated convictions.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court reviews a trial court's decision to impose a discretionary consecutive sentence for an abuse of discretion. People v Norfleet, 317 Mich App 649, 654; 897 NW2d 195 (2016). A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision falls "outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes." Id. at 654.

III. ANALYSIS

In this appeal, defendant argues that the trial court imposed a consecutive sentence without sufficiently articulating its "particularized reasons" for doing so. We disagree.

When a trial court imposes a discretionary consecutive sentence, it must "articulate on the record the reasons for each consecutive sentence imposed," Id., because "Michigan has a 'clear preference for concurrent sentencing[.]' " Id. at 665, quoting People v Chambers, 430 Mich 217, 231; 421 NW2d 903 (1988). A trial court sufficiently justifies a consecutive sentence when it gives "particularized reasons—with reference to the specific offenses and the defendant—to impose each sentence . . . consecutive to the others," Id. at 666.

The record in this case reflects that the trial court sufficiently justified imposing a consecutive sentence. At the resentencing hearing, the prosecutor explained to the trial court that it had discretion to make defendant's sentence consecutive. Both the prosecutor and defendant's counsel framed their arguments in terms of the sentence being concurrent or consecutive. The trial court repeatedly referred to defendant's sentence for the unrelated crimes as independent and finalized, noting, "I don't need to go there. You've already been sentenced for that." Before issuing the sentence, the trial court reviewed defendant's lengthy criminal history, consisting of two juvenile and 12 adult convictions; the permanent nature of the victim's injury; and defendant's selfishness and persistent "lack of regard for human life and safety." The trial court's general discussion of the factors underlying the sentence reflects the exercise of its discretion in imposing a consecutive sentence.

Defendant suggests that the trial court explained its imposition of a sentence at the top of the guidelines range but did not provide a particularized explanation for making his sentence consecutive. We disagree.

This Court directed the trial court to determine whether defendant's sentence should be consecutive. The trial court had no obligation to justify imposing a minimum sentence within the discretionary guidelines' range. The record reflects that the trial court appropriately considered the propriety of issuing a consecutive sentence and provided its rationale for doing so. A trial court must articulate why it imposed a consecutive sentence in sufficient detail to allow this Court to review the sentence for an abuse of discretion. In this case, the trial court made specific references to defendant's behavior and emphasized the importance of defendant spending a significant amount of time in prison to achieve rehabilitation and noted "[y]ou have a long way to go," and "[y]ou need the time behind bars to improve your behavior, to rethink how you are on the outside." The trial court gave due consideration to the impact of imposing a consecutive sentence and specifically articulated its reasons for doing so. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Affirmed.

/s/ Colleen A. O'Brien

/s/ Michael F. Gadola

/s/ James Robert Redford

See People v Purnell, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued August 8, 2017 (Docket No. 333288).


Summaries of

People v. Purnell

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
Nov 26, 2019
No. 346649 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2019)
Case details for

People v. Purnell

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JONATHON LEDALE…

Court:STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

Date published: Nov 26, 2019

Citations

No. 346649 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2019)

Citing Cases

Purnell v. Rewerts

The Michigan Court of Appeals denied relief in an unpublished opinion issued November 26, 2019. People v.…