¶1(concurring). I concur in the result reached by the majority, but I write separately to note that as stated in my partial dissent and partial concurrence in People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247, 280-284; 666 NW2d 231 (2003), a trial court need only state “a substantial and compelling reason for that departure .. . .” MCL 769.34(3). Because the trial court departed from the mandatory sentencing guidelines, but did not state on the record “a substantial and compelling reason” for departure, defendant’s sentence is invalid under the sentencing guidelines.
477 Mich. 18
727 N.W.2d 127
People v. Buehler
Decided February 6, 2007
Michigan Supreme Court · decided 2007-02-06
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 2018
8 state decisions
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“if the court has a substantial and compelling reason for that departure and states on the record the reasons for departure.”
quoted by 1 later decision, including People v. Young
“defendant's sentence [was] invalid under the sentencing * guidelines,”
quoted by 1 later decision, including People of Michigan v. Lonnie James Arnold
Applies MI 769 § 769.34
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2007-02-06
View the full empirical analysis of this case →