PEOPLE OF MI V RONALD L GREGORYAnnotate this Case
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
June 16, 1998
LC No. 94-006762
RONALD L. GREGORY,
Before: Wahls, P.J., and Jansen and Gage, JJ.
Defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter, MCL 750.321; MSA 28.553, and was sentenced to
ten to fifteen years’ imprisonment. We remanded this case “with directions to the trial court to articulate
both on the record and on the SIR departure form those factors which it believed were not adequately
considered by the guidelines so as to justify the extent of the departure from the recommended
sentencing range.” People v Ronald Gregory, unpublished memorandum opinion of the Court of
Appeals, decided December 8, 1995 (Docket No. 180403). Following the articulation on the record
of its reasons for departure, the court entered an order indicating that it was “resentencing” defendant to
ten to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm, but remand for the
administrative task of the preparation of a SIR departure form.
Our review of the record discloses no hearing on remand at which the trial court resentenced
defendant. We are also unable to find in the record any new or amended judgment of sentence that
would establish that defendant had been resentenced on remand. Instead, the record indicates that the
court conducted a hearing at which it merely articulated its reasons for imposing a sentence. Under
these circumstances, we conclude that the court’s reference to “resentencing” in the order entered on
remand constitutes a misstatement of what occurred on remand. Because the remand proceedings did
not constitute a critical stage in the proceedings and because defendant was not resentenced, defendant
had no right to be present or to allocution at the remand proceedings. People v Strunk, 172 Mich App
208, 211; 431 NW2d 223 (1988).
Defendant’s sentence does not violate the principle of proportionality, particularly where the
brutal and disfiguring nature of the beating sustained by the victim was not adequately reflected in the
sentencing guidelines range. People v Houston, 448 Mich 312; 532 NW2d 508 (1995).
Defendant’s claim that the trial court failed on remand to follow our articulation instructions
lacks record support. The trial court did fail, however, to record the reasons for the departure on an
SIR departure form. People v Fleming, 428 Mich 408, 428; 410 NW2d 266 (1987). Accordingly,
we remand for the purely administrative task of preparing an SIR departure form. See People v
Yeoman, 218 Mich App 406; 554 NW2d 577 (1996).
Defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel fails for lack of record support.
People v Hurst, 205 Mich App 634, 641; 517 NW2d 858 (1994).
Remanded for the completion of an SIR departure form. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Myron H. Wahls
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Hilda R. Gage