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 a minimum sentencing-guidelines range of 270 to 450 months for the assault conviction and imposed a controlling sentence of 360 to 600 months’ imprisonment.
Armogeda moved to correct an invalid sentence, arguing that Prior Record Variable 2 and Offense Variable 12 had been scored incorrectly. Although the prosecution conceded an error, the trial court declined to resolve the correct range because it considered a 360-month minimum appropriate under either proposed calculation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence while remanding for correction of the scoring and presentence report. On remand, the parties stipulated that the correct range was 171 to 285 months, leaving Armogeda’s 360-month minimum above that range.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in part and remanded for resentencing. The Court held that when a sentencing court relies on an incorrectly calculated guidelines range and the sentence falls outside the corrected range, the defendant is entitled to resentencing even if the trial court previously said it would impose the same sentence regardless of the error.
The majority reaffirmed People v. Francisco and held that it remains compatible with People v. Lockridge, which made Michigan’s sentencing guidelines advisory. Although the guidelines are advisory, courts must accurately score them, calculate the applicable range, and consider that range when selecting a sentence. On remand, the trial court may impose the same sentence if it finds the sentence reasonable and proportionate, but it must explain any departure from the corrected range.
Justice Richard H. Bernstein concurred in the decision to reverse and require resentencing but dissented from the majority’s decision to reaffirm Francisco, reasoning that accurate-information and appellate-review principles resolved the case without reaching that issue. Justice Brian K. Zahra dissented and favored a Crosby/Lockridge remand under which the trial court would first decide whether the corrected information would change its sentence, with resentencing required only if it would.
Key Takeaways
- 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.
- Resentencing does not require a different sentence; the court may reimpose the same term if it is reasonable and proportionate and any departure is adequately explained.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Francisco remains applicable after Lockridge and makes accurate guidelines calculations a prerequisite to a valid exercise of sentencing discretion. A court cannot treat a scoring error as immaterial merely because it believes the same term is justified independently of the guidelines.
The ruling also preserves trial-court discretion: the corrected range supplies the benchmark for reconsideration and appellate review, but it does not compel a within-guidelines sentence.