Background
Evan Taylor Armogeda was convicted by a jury 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 at 270 to 450 months and imposed a controlling sentence of 360 to 600 months.
Armogeda moved to correct an invalid sentence, challenging the scoring of Prior Record Variable 2 and Offense Variable 12. Rather than resolve the scoring disputes, the trial court said that 360 months was the lowest appropriate minimum sentence and that it would impose that sentence regardless of the applicable range. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence but remanded to correct the scoring and presentence report. On remand, the parties stipulated that both variables should receive zero points and that the correct range was 171 to 285 months, leaving Armogeda’s 360-month minimum above the corrected range.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Supreme Court held that a defendant whose sentence was based on an incorrectly calculated guidelines range and falls outside the corrected range is entitled to resentencing, even when the trial court has stated that it would impose the same sentence. The Court reaffirmed People v. Francisco and held that its rule remains compatible with the advisory-guidelines system established by People v. Lockridge.
Although the guidelines are advisory, trial courts must accurately score them, calculate the applicable range, and consider that range when selecting a sentence. Because the trial court refused to reconsider Armogeda’s sentence using the corrected range, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in part and remanded for resentencing. The trial court may impose the same sentence again if it finds the sentence reasonable and proportionate, but it must consider the corrected range and articulate its reasons for any departure.
Key Takeaways
- Michigan’s advisory sentencing guidelines must still be accurately scored, calculated, and considered.
- A trial court’s statement that it would impose the same sentence does not avoid resentencing when the original sentence exceeds the corrected guidelines range.
- On remand, the court may reimpose the same sentence, but any departure must be reasonable, proportionate, and supported by articulated reasons.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Lockridge did not displace Francisco’s protection against sentencing based on inaccurate guidelines information. Correct calculation remains essential both to individualized sentencing and to meaningful appellate review.
For practitioners, the opinion establishes that correcting a presentence report or guidelines worksheet alone is insufficient when the sentence exceeds the properly calculated range. The sentencing court must conduct resentencing and make its decision with the accurate range in view.