The trial court’s objective in sentencing a defendant is to tailor a penalty that is appropriate to the seriousness of the offense and the criminal history of the offender. See People v Rice (On Remand), 235 Mich App 429, 445 (1999). The following objectives should be considered when crafting a sentence:
•the likelihood or potential that the offender could be reformed;
•the need to protect society;
•the penalty or consequence appropriate to the offender’s conduct; and
•the goal of deterring others from similar conduct. Rice, 235 Mich App at 446, citing People v Snow, 386 Mich 586, 592 (1972).
The presentence report,1 mandatory scoring of the advisory statutory sentencing guidelines,2 and limitations on what factors may be considered during sentencing3 provide the sentencing judge with “a broad, yet fair, knowledge of the defendant and the circumstances of the crime of which he is convicted.” People v Adams, 430 Mich 679, 687 (1988). “It remains the role of the sentencing judge to weigh facts deemed relevant to the sentencing decision.” Id.
1 “Proposed scoring of the [sentencing] guidelines shall accompany the presentence report.” MCR 6.425(C). See Chapter 2 for a detailed discussion of scoring. See Section 6.9 for more information about presentence investigation reports.
2 Adams was decided before the statutory sentencing guidelines were enacted and the reference to the “sentencing guidelines” was almost certainly referring to the judicial sentencing guidelines that were replaced by the legislative sentencing guidelines, enacted by 1998 PA 317. See Adams, 430 Mich at 687. However, the statutory sentencing guidelines, while advisory only, must be scored and considered. People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358, 392 (2015). For a detailed discussion of Lockridge and the switch from mandatory guidelines to advisory guidelines, see Section 1.4. For a detailed discussion of scoring the statutory sentencing guidelines, see Chapter 2.
3 See Section 5.3 for a discussion of proper and improper sentencing considerations.