PEOPLE OF MI V NTUKU ALIAKBAR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
October 2, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 228262
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 99-004574
NTUKU ALIAKBAR,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Markey and Cooper, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right his bench trial conviction for arson of a dwelling house.
MCL 750.72. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR
7.214(E).
The sole issue on appeal concerns defendant’s sentence. Defendant was sentenced under
the statutory sentencing guidelines. MCL 769.34. The trial court deviated from the fifteen to
twenty-five month guideline range, and sentenced defendant to 7½ to 20 years’ imprisonment.
The court rejected the guidelines recommendation because it did not reflect the gravity of the
offense, or the fear and danger that the family experienced based on the repeated attacks by
defendant.
Under most circumstances, the guidelines statute requires trial courts to impose a
minimum sentence within the appropriate sentence range. People v Babcock, 244 Mich App 64,
72; 624 NW2d 479 (2000). The statute permits trial courts to depart from the guidelines only
where there is a substantial and compelling reason to do so. MCL 769.34(3). This Court’s
review of a sentence outside the guidelines range is limited to whether the trial court had a
substantial and compelling reason to depart from the guidelines. MCL 76.34(11); Babcock,
supra at 74.
The existence or nonexistence of a particular factor is a factual determination, which this
Court will review for clear error. People v Fields, 448 Mich 58, 77; 528 NW2d 176 (1995). The
determination that a particular factor is objective and verifiable is reviewed as a matter of law.
Id. at 78. The trial court’s determination that the objective and verifiable factors present in a
particular case constitute substantial and compelling reasons to depart from the guidelines is
-1-
reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. The principle of proportionality is not incorporated into the
sentencing review framework of the statute. Babcock, supra at 78.
The trial court did not clearly err in determining that defendant was involved in
continuing criminal activities against his family that placed them in fear and danger. Defendant’s
actions were objective and verifiable. The fact that defendant’s actions involved his family is a
proper aggravating act to be considered by the court. Id. at 79. The reasons justifying departure
keenly and irresistibly grab one’s attention and the Court recognizes them as being of
considerable worth in deciding the length of the sentence. See Fields, supra at 67. Where
defendant engaged in a continuing pattern of criminal activity against his own family, inciting
fear for their lives, the trial court could reasonably conclude that there was a substantial and
compelling reason for departing from the fifteen to twenty-five month guideline range.
Affirmed.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
-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.
