Background
A jury convicted Evan Taylor Armogeda of assault with intent to commit murder, carrying a dangerous weapon with unlawful intent, and third-degree fleeing and eluding. The trial court calculated his minimum sentencing-guidelines range for the assault conviction as 270 to 450 months and imposed a controlling sentence of 360 to 600 months’ imprisonment.
Armogeda moved to correct an invalid sentence, asserting that Prior Record Variable 2 and Offense Variable 12 had been scored incorrectly. The trial court declined to resolve the scoring dispute, reasoning that a 360-month minimum was appropriate regardless of which proposed range applied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence but remanded for correction of the scoring and presentence investigation report. On remand, the parties stipulated that both variables should receive zero points and that the correct minimum range was 171 to 285 months, leaving Armogeda’s 360-month minimum above that range.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Supreme Court held that a defendant whose sentence was based on an incorrectly calculated guidelines range and exceeds the corrected range is entitled to resentencing, even when the sentencing judge previously stated that the same sentence would be imposed regardless of the scoring error. The Court reaffirmed People v. Francisco and concluded that its rule remains compatible with Michigan’s advisory-guidelines system under People v. Lockridge.
Although the guidelines are advisory, sentencing courts must accurately score them, calculate the applicable range, and consider that range when selecting a sentence. The trial court therefore erred by refusing to reconsider Armogeda’s sentence using the corrected range, and the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the sentence before the proper range had been determined. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in part and remanded for resentencing.
On remand, the trial court may impose the same sentence if it determines that the sentence is reasonable and proportionate to the offense and the offender. If it departs from the corrected range, however, it must articulate reasons justifying that specific departure.
Key Takeaways
- Michigan’s sentencing guidelines are advisory, but courts must still calculate them accurately and consider the correct range.
- A judge’s statement that the same sentence would be imposed despite a scoring error does not avoid resentencing when the sentence exceeds the corrected guidelines range.
- Resentencing does not require a lower sentence; the court may reimpose the original sentence if the departure is reasonable, proportionate, and adequately explained.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Francisco remains controlling after Lockridge and protects a defendant’s right to individualized sentencing based on accurate information. Correct calculation also supplies the benchmark needed for meaningful appellate review and identifies whether a sentence constitutes a departure requiring explanation.
For practitioners, the ruling means that correcting a presentence report or guidelines worksheet alone is insufficient when the original sentence exceeds the corrected range. The sentencing court must conduct resentencing and genuinely reconsider the sentence in light of the accurate range.