PEOPLE OF MI V TRAVIS DENALE NORRIS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
July 16, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 230086
Genesee Circuit Court
LC No. 99-005150-FH
TRAVIS DENALE NORRIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Gage, P.J., and Cavanagh and Wilder, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was charged with two counts of uttering and publishing, MCL 750.249, and
one count each of unlawfully driving away a motor vehicle, MCL 750.413, receiving and
concealing stolen property worth at least $1,000 but less than $20,000, MCL 750.535(3)(a), and
larceny in a dwelling house, MCL 750.360. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of
two counts of uttering and publishing, one count of unlawfully driving away a motor vehicle, and
one count of larceny in a dwelling house. The trial court sentenced defendant in excess of the
applicable sentencing guidelines ranges to concurrent terms of (1) one hundred twelve months’
to fourteen years’ imprisonment for the uttering and publishing convictions, (2) forty to sixty
months’ imprisonment for the conviction of unlawfully driving away a motor vehicle, and (3)
thirty-two to forty-eight months’ imprisonment for the larceny conviction. Defendant appeals as
of right. We affirm.
Evidence introduced at defendant’s trial indicated that he killed two elderly victims for
whom he previously had performed odd jobs, and took a vehicle, cash, and some blank checks
from the victims’ house. With the help of a codefendant, defendant cashed two checks from the
victims’ bank account. In addition to standing trial on the five counts enumerated above,
defendant simultaneously faced trial with respect to a separate information charging two counts
each of first-degree and felony murder. The jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict regarding
any of the charged counts of murder, and the trial court declared a mistrial regarding these
charges.1
1
According to the prosecutor’s brief on appeal, a different jury subsequently found defendant
guilty of two counts of first-degree murder, for which defendant received concurrent terms of life
without parole.
-1-
Defendant contends that the trial court lacked substantial and compelling reasons for
sentencing him in excess of the sentencing guidelines ranges. Because the legislative sentencing
guidelines applied to defendant’s convictions, the trial court had to impose minimum sentences
within the guidelines ranges unless it found “a substantial and compelling reason for [a]
departure and state[d] on the record the reasons for departure.” MCL 769.34(3). The reasons for
departure must be objective and verifiable. People v Babcock, 244 Mich App 64, 75; 624 NW2d
479 (2000). A court may not premise a departure from the guidelines range on the basis of a
defendant’s “gender, race, ethnicity, alienage, national origin, legal occupation, lack of
employment,” representation at trial or religion, MCL 769.34(3)(a), or “on an offense
characteristic or offender characteristic already taken into account in determining the appropriate
sentence range unless the court finds from the facts contained in the court record . . . that the
characteristic has been given inadequate or disproportionate weight.” MCL 769.34(3)(b).
This Court reviews for clear error the trial court’s factual determination that a particular
reason exists to warrant departure from the guidelines. This Court reviews de novo as a matter
of law the trial court’s determination that a particular factor is objective and verifiable. A trial
court’s determination that the objective and verifiable factors present in a particular case
constitute substantial and compelling reasons to depart from the statutory minimum sentence
shall be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Babcock, supra at 75-76.
The guidelines ranges calculated with respect to defendant’s convictions required that,
absent valid reasons for departure, the trial court impose minimum terms between seven to
twenty-three months for the convictions of uttering and publishing and unlawfully driving away
a motor vehicle, and a minimum term between zero to seventeen months for the larceny
conviction. The trial court departed significantly from the guidelines ranges by imposing
minimum terms of one hundred twelve months for defendant’s uttering and publishing
convictions, forty months for the unlawful driving away conviction, and thirty-two months for
the larceny conviction. The trial court explained as follows at the sentencing hearing its reasons
for departing from the guidelines ranges:
I do intend to deviate from the Guidelines. I’m doing that because I had
the opportunity to preside at the trial; I heard all the evidence. These crimes all
involve taking undue advantage of two vulnerable senior citizens in their homes,
one of whom had serious health problems, the other being his wife. [Defendant]
stole from ’em for the purpose of satisfying your cocaine and sexual desires. You
are awaiting trial only because of a hung jury on the murders of both these people.
I conclude that for the protection of the community it’s necessary that the
Court exceed the Guidelines.2
2
The trial court stated similarly its reasons for departure in a written sentencing information
report departure evaluation:
Travis Norris is an extremely manipulative individual who is dangerous &
poses a serious threat to the community.
(continued…)
-2-
Defendant insists that the guidelines ranges already had incorporated the trial court’s reasons for
departure, that the court’s reasons were not objective or verifiable, and that the court
impermissibly relied on pending murder charges, which consisted of “merely unproven
accusations.”
Although a trial court may not make an independent finding of guilt with respect to a
crime for which a defendant has been acquitted, and then sentence the defendant on the basis of
that finding, the court in fashioning an appropriate sentence may consider the evidence offered at
trial, including other criminal activities established even though the defendant was acquitted of
the charges. People v Compagnari, 233 Mich App 233, 236; 590 NW2d 302 (1998). The record
in this case reflects that defendant exploited his relationship of trust with two elderly victims and
callously ended their lives in the course of stealing their cash, checks and vehicle, which thefts
led to his instant convictions. Defendant had for some time performed various manual labors for
the victims, a husband and wife, both of whom had reached their mid sixties. The husband was a
wheelchair bound diabetic who had his left leg amputated above the knee. On the apparently
false premise of returning to the victims’ house to claim a wallet he had left behind while
assisting in cleaning the basement, defendant lured the wife into the basement where he
suffocated her into unconsciousness. Defendant went back upstairs, fought with and physically
overcame the husband, whom defendant attempted to smother and knocked onto the floor.
Defendant returned to the basement to find the wife regaining consciousness and smothered her
again before leaving the house to purchase drugs. Early the next morning, defendant returned to
the victims’ house to retrieve a hat he had left there and to take the victims’ vehicle. Defendant
observed the husband lying on the ground, calling out to his wife that he needed his medication.
Defendant ignored the husband and left with the victims’ vehicle to cash the victims’ checks and
purchase more drugs and the services of a prostitute. Both victims died from asphyxia secondary
to smothering.
We find that in fashioning defendant’s sentences, the trial court properly considered
defendant’s killing of the victims during the course of his crimes. The trial court need not have
considered the instant property crimes in a factual vacuum. Compagnari, supra. The guidelines
calculations of the minimum sentence ranges with respect to defendant’s instant property crimes
plainly did not take into account defendant’s exploitation of his prior relationship with the
elderly victims, or the extent of defendant’s victimization and ultimate murders of the two
victims. In light of these objective and verifiable facts of record, we cannot conclude that the
trial court clearly erred in finding that defendant’s “[o]ffenses . . . involved the murders of both
victims.” Babcock, supra. Furthermore, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its
discretion in finding that the objective and verifiable factors present in this case constituted
substantial and compelling reasons to depart from the statutory minimum sentences. Id. at 76.
To the extent that a proportionality analysis applies to the degree of the trial court’s departure
(…continued)
He selected two vulnerable senior citizens to steal from for the purpose of
satisfying his cocaine & sexual desires.
Offenses also involved the murders of both victims for which Def[endant]
is awaiting trial after a hung jury.
-3-
from the guidelines ranges, People v Babcock (After Remand), ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d
___ (Docket No. 235518, issued 3/19/02), slip op. at 3-4, we find the sentences imposed by the
trial court proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offenses and the
offender. People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 635-636; 461 NW2d 1 (1990); Compagnari, supra
at 234-237.3
In light of our conclusion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
defendant, we need not consider defendant’s additional argument that he should be resentenced
before a different judge.
Affirmed.
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
3
We note that, contrary to defendant’s suggestions in his brief on appeal, the principle of
proportionality does not dictate that a departure from guidelines is to be arithmetically measured
to determine the propriety of a given sentence. People v Merriweather, 447 Mich 799, 808; 527
NW2d 460 (1994).
-4-
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.
