PEOPLE OF MI V JEFFREY ALLEN TOWN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
July 9, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 236337
St. Joseph Circuit Court
LC No. 99-009955-FC
JEFFREY ALLEN TOWN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and Doctoroff, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals by delayed leave granted his sentence of twenty-one to fifty years in
prison imposed on his plea-based conviction of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree (CSC
I), the victim being under thirteen years of age, MCL 750.520b(1)(a). We affirm. This appeal is
being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant agreed to plead guilty of one count of CSC I in return for dismissal of two
counts of CSC I and one count of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree, the victim being
under thirteen years of age, MCL 750.520c(1)(a). To establish a factual basis for the plea
offense, defendant admitted that he placed his penis in the mouth of the five-year-old female
complainant for the purpose of sexual gratification.
The applicable statutory sentencing guidelines recommended a minimum term range of
eighty-one to 135 months for the conviction of CSC I. The trial court stated that substantial and
compelling reasons existed to exceed the guidelines, and that the guidelines did not adequately
account for the scope and seriousness of defendant’s offenses and defendant’s own
circumstances. The court emphasized that defendant was an admitted pedophile who sexually
abused the female complainant some one hundred times over a period of approximately one year,
and abused the six-year-old brother of the girl some fifty times during that same period. The
court noted that the victims suffered extreme psychological trauma as a result of the abuse, and
that they would require extensive therapy. The court also concluded that defendant was a danger
to society. The court sentenced defendant to twenty-one to fifty years in prison, with credit for
260 days.
In most instances a trial court must impose a sentence within the calculated guidelines
range. MCL 769.34(2). A trial court may depart from the guidelines if it finds that a substantial
and compelling reason exists to do so. To constitute a substantial and compelling reason for
-1-
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),
(hereinafter referred to as Babcock I). We review the trial court’s determination of the existence
of a substantial and compelling reason for departure for clear error. The determination that the
reason is objective and verifiable is reviewed as a matter of law. The determination that the
reason constituted a substantial and compelling reason to depart from the guidelines is reviewed
for an abuse of discretion. Id., 75-76.
The extent of a departure from the guidelines is reviewable pursuant to the principle of
proportionality set out in People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). People v
Babcock (After Remand), ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No. 235518, March 19,
2002) (hereinafter referred to as Babcock II). The key test of the proportionality of a sentence is
whether it reflects the seriousness of the matter. People v Houston, 448 Mich 312, 320; 532
NW2d 508 (1995). The trial court may depart from the guidelines for nondiscriminatory reasons
where legitimate factors either were not considered by the guidelines, or were considered but
were given inadequate or disproportionate weight. MCL 769.34(3)(b); People v Armstrong, 247
Mich App 423, 425; 636 NW2d 785 (2001).
Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by departing from the
guidelines and imposing a minimum term that exceeded by nearly two times the high end of the
recommended minimum term range. He asserts both that the seriousness of the offense was
taken into account in the calculation of the guidelines, and that the trial court did not adequately
articulate its reasons for departing from the guidelines. Finally, defendant contends that his
sentence is so disproportionate that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
We disagree and affirm defendant’s sentence. The guidelines account for repeated
felonious behavior in Offense Variable (OV) 12, MCL 777.42, contemporaneous felonious
criminal acts, and OV 13, MCL 777.43, continuing pattern of criminal behavior. However, these
variables can acknowledge at most the effect of three other offenses. Defendant admitted that he
is a pedophile and that he sexually abused complainant and her brother some one hundred times
and fifty times, respectively, within the span of approximately one year, that he sexually abused
other very young children as well, and that he attempted to coerce the children into remaining
silent by threatening them. The trial court did not err in finding that the magnitude of
defendant’s admitted behavior was given inadequate weight by the guidelines. Armstrong,
supra. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that substantial and compelling
reasons existed for departing upward from the guidelines, Babcock I, supra, 76, and adequately
articulated its reasons for exceeding the guidelines.
Defendant’s sentence, while a significant departure from the guidelines, adequately
reflects the seriousness of the matter, and thus is proportionate. Houston, supra; Babcock II,
supra. A proportionate sentence is not cruel and unusual. People v Terry, 224 Mich App 447,
456; 569 NW2d 641 (1997).
Affirmed.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
-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.