Background
Ronnie Allen Younger, Jr. pleaded no contest to felonious assault after stabbing his daughter’s boyfriend during an argument. The trial court imposed a sentence of 18 months to four years in prison, relying in part on Younger’s claimed remorse and on the mistaken belief that he had been on probation.
As Younger left the courtroom, body-camera footage recorded him telling his wife that the complainant “better be gone.” After receiving the footage, the trial court sua sponte resentenced Younger to 24 months to four years, reasoning in part that the remark showed insincere remorse and violated a no-contact order. Younger appealed the amended judgment by leave granted.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court had authority to resentence Younger, but not merely because it later changed its subjective assessment of his remorse. Resentencing was authorized because the original sentence rested partly on inaccurate information about Younger’s probation status. Once resentencing was properly initiated, the court could consider current information, including the post-sentencing remark.
The revised sentence was nevertheless invalid because the record did not support a finding that Younger violated the no-contact order. Nothing showed that the complainant heard or knew of the remark, that Younger directly contacted him, or that Younger sought to have a third party contact him. The panel also identified a possible double-counting problem in the scoring of Younger’s Arizona felonies under prior record variables 1 and 2. It vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing before the same judge, rejecting Younger’s vindictiveness, proportionality, and reassignment arguments.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court cannot invalidate an otherwise valid sentence simply because new information changes its subjective view of a defendant’s remorse.
- Resentencing was permitted because the original sentence was based partly on inaccurate information about Younger’s probation status, even though correcting that information did not change the guidelines range.
- A sentence is invalid when it rests partly on an unsupported finding that the defendant violated a no-contact order; on remand, the trial court must also correct or explain the apparent prior-record-variable double counting.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes between a judge’s changed opinion about a defendant’s character, which alone does not authorize resentencing, and objectively inaccurate information that affected the original sentencing decision, which can make a sentence subject to correction.
It also underscores that current conduct may be considered at a valid resentencing, but any finding used to increase punishment must have evidentiary support. Sentencing courts must place sufficient findings on the record to permit review, particularly when classifying out-of-state convictions under Michigan’s sentencing guidelines.