PEOPLE OF MI V TODD EUGENE STEINBERG
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 204595
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 94-133144 FH
TODD EUGENE STEINBERG,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Griffin, P.J. and Gribbs and Talbot, JJ.
TALBOT, J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. While I agree with the majority that the trial court’s findings with respect
to defendant’s postincarceration conduct were not clearly erroneous, I would hold that the trial court
abused it’s discretion when it determined that this single objective and verifiable factor in defendant’s
favor constituted a substantial and compelling reason for its downward departure from the statutory
presumptive minimum sentence.
The Michigan Supreme Court has instructed that the Legislature’s use of the strong language in
the phrase “substantial and compelling reasons” indicates that downward deviations were contemplated
only for exceptional cases. People v Fields, 448 Mich 58, 68; 528 NW2d 176 (1995); People v
Johnson (On Remand), 223 Mich App 170, 172-173; 556 NW2d 28 (1997). Thus, it is improper for
a sentencing court to consider in isolation a single positive aspect of a defendant’s record without
articulating why this factor, given the defendant’s record as a whole, provides a substantial and
compelling basis for excepting the defendant from the legislative mandated sentencing regime. See
Johnson, supra at 173-174. Here, defendant’s fourth habitual offender status represents a significant
counterweight against his successes while incarcerated. Accordingly, I would conclude that the reason
given by the trial court for departing below the presumptive minimum sentence does not warrant a
departure.
Moreover, given the majority’s conclusion that the trial court erroneously considered
defendant’s “mind set” and the probation officer’s recommendation, the proper remedy would be to
remand for a determination whether there are substantial and compelling reasons to deviate
-1
when only appropriate factors are considered. See Fields, supra at 80; Johnson, supra at 175;
People v Perry, 216 Mich App 277, 283; 549 NW2d 42 (1996).
I would reverse and remand for resentencing.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
