PEOPLE OF MI V IAN ELMER ANDERSON
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UNPUBLISHED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. 231872
Lenawee Circuit Court
LC No. 00-008849-FC
IAN ELMER ANDERSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J. and Markey and Cooper, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals by delayed leave granted his sentence of forty-five to ninety years in
prison imposed on his plea-based conviction of armed robbery, MCL 750.529. We affirm. This
appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant pleaded guilty of armed robbery in exchange for dismissal of other charges.
The legislative sentencing guidelines recommended a minimum term range of nine to fifteen
years. At sentencing, the trial court found that substantial and compelling reasons existed to
depart from the guidelines. The trial court sentenced defendant to 45 to 90 years in prison, with
credit for 187 days. That sentence was to run concurrent to the sentence for a separate offense,
which defendant does not challenge on appeal.
The legislative sentencing guidelines apply to offenses committed on or after January 1,
1999. MCL 769.34(1). In most instances, a trial court is required to impose a minimum
sentence within the calculated guidelines range. MCL 769.34(2)(a) and (b). A trial court may
depart from the guidelines if substantial and compelling reasons exist to do so. MCL 769.34(3).
To constitute a substantial and compelling reason for departing from the guidelines, the reason
must be objective and verifiable, and must irresistibly hold the attention of the court. People v
Babcock, 244 Mich App 64, 75; 624 NW2d 479 (2000). The trial court’s determination that a
substantial and compelling reason exists for departure is reviewed for clear error. Id. at 75-76.
However, whether such a factor is objective and verifiable is reviewed as a matter of law. Id. at
76. The trial court’s ultimate conclusion, that an objective and verifiable factor constituted a
substantial and compelling reason to warranting departure from the guidelines, is reviewed for an
abuse of discretion. Id.
-1-
Once we determine that a trial court’s stated reason for departing from the guidelines is
objective and verifiable, we must limit our review of a sentence to whether the trial court abused
its discretion in concluding that the factor constituted a substantial and compelling reason for the
departure. Id. at 78. If we conclude that a substantial and compelling reason existed for
departure from the guidelines, we must affirm the resulting sentence as long as it otherwise
comports with the sentencing guidelines and other requirements of the law. Id. The statutory
sentencing guidelines do not authorize a further review of the sentence pursuant to the principle
of proportionality set out in People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). Babcock,
supra at 77-78.
In the instant case, the trial court read defendant’s lengthy psychological report into the
record and concluded that there were substantial and compelling reasons for departing from the
guidelines. We find that the factors considered by the trial court were objective and verifiable
and that there was no clear error in the determination that they were substantial and compelling.
Furthermore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed a minimum term that
exceeded the statutory guidelines.
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.