STATEMENT OF Defendant adopts the Statement of Facts in the Brief on Appeal. He was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison for assault with intent to murder, and one to five years for receiving and concealing stolen property under $20,000. The Court of Appeals issued an order allowing Defendant to file a supplemental brief addressing whether the sentences were reasonable in light of the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in ___Mich___(#149073, July People v Lockridge, 29, 2015). THE SENTENCE IMPOSED ON DEFENDANT FOR ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO MURDER IS BOTH PROCEDURALLY AND SUBSTANTIVELY UNREASONABLE. Standard of Review Because the Guidelines are now advisory, appellate review of sentencing decisions is limited to determining whether they are 543 US 220, 125 United States v Booker, “reasonable,” SCt 738, 160 LEd2d 621 (2004), and an abuse-of-discretion standard applies to appellate review of sentencing decisions. 552 US 38; 128 S Ct 586, 590; 169 L Ed 2d 445 Gall v United States, (2007); ___Mich___(#149073, July 29, 2015). People v Lockridge, Reasonableness The federal guidelines have been advisory, pursuant to for United States v Booker, supra, several years, and the appellate courts accordingly review sentences for reasonableness. When imposing sentence, the federal district courts start by applying the factors delineated in 18 USC 3553(a). Those factors include the following: (a) Factors To Be Considered in Imposing a Sentence. The shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in paragraph (2) of this
STATEMENT OF Defendant adopts the Statement of Facts in the Brief on Appeal. He was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison for assault with intent to murder, and one to five years for receiving and concealing stolen property under $20,000. The Court of Appeals issued an order allowing Defendant to file a supplemental brief addressing whether the sentences were reasonable in light of the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in People v Lockridge, ___Mich___(#149073, July 29, 2015). THE SENTENCE IMPOSED ON DEFENDANT FOR ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO MURDER IS BOTH PROCEDURALLY AND SUBSTANTIVELY UNREASONABLE. Standard of Review Because the Guidelines are now advisory, appellate review of sentencing decisions is limited to determining whether they are “reasonable,” United States v Booker, 543 US 220, 125 SCt 738, 160 LEd2d 621 (2004), and an abuse-of-discretion standard applies to appellate review of sentencing decisions. Gall v United States, 552 US 38; 128 S Ct 586, 590; 169 L Ed 2d 445 (2007); People v Lockridge, ___Mich___(#149073, July 29, 2015). Reasonableness The federal guidelines have been advisory, pursuant to United States v Booker, supra, for several years, and the appellate courts accordingly review sentences for reasonableness. When imposing sentence, the federal district courts start by applying the factors delineated in 18 USC 3553(a). Those factors include the following: (a) Factors To Be Considered in Imposing a Sentence. The shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in paragraph (2) of this
10518_Lockridge-Sample-3.docx