PEOPLE OF MI V JAMES MILLER

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED May 20, 2003 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 237808 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 99-000329 JAMES MILLER, Defendant-Appellant. Before: Cooper, P.J., and Sawyer and Murphy, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant was convicted on two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520b(1)(a); and two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520c(1)(a). The trial court originally sentenced defendant to life imprisonment and 40 to 80 years’ imprisonment for the first-degree criminal sexual conduct convictions. These sentences were to be served concurrently with his sentences of 10 to 15 years’ imprisonment for each of the second-degree criminal sexual conduct convictions. This Court vacated defendant’s sentences on appeal and remanded for resentencing because the trial court improperly considered defendant’s prior felony convictions when scoring the judicial sentencing guidelines. When properly scored, this Court determined that the minimum sentence guidelines range should be 10 to 25 years’ imprisonment. At resentencing, the trial court sentenced defendant to 25 to 50 years’ imprisonment for each of the first-degree criminal sexual conduct convictions and 8-1/2 to 15 years’ imprisonment for each of the second-degree criminal sexual conduct convictions. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm. Defendant was convicted of sexually assaulting a five-year-old girl. The girl apparently went to her aunt’s house for a “pajama party.” While at the house, defendant touched the girl’s “private parts” through her clothes. After the girl’s clothes were removed by her aunt, defendant penetrated her “private part” and forced her to perform fellatio on him. On remand, the trial court sentenced defendant to the highest minimum sentences allowable under the judicial sentencing guidelines. The trial court described defendant’s conduct as “outrageous” and noted the “vile” nature of the offenses. The trial court further commented that society needed to be protected from those who prey on the most vulnerable. -1- On appeal, defendant contends that his sentences for first-degree criminal sexual conduct are disproportionate to the offense and the offender. Specifically, defendant claims that the trial court failed to adequately consider his lack of recent convictions and his age1 during resentencing. We disagree. A trial court’s sentencing decision is reviewed on appeal for an abuse of discretion. People v McCrady, 213 Mich App 474, 483; 540 NW2d 718 (1995). “[A] given sentence can be said to constitute an abuse of discretion if that sentence violates the principle of proportionality, which requires sentences imposed by the trial court to be proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender.” People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 636; 461 NW2d 1 (1990) The judicial guidelines are applicable in this case because the offenses were committed before January 1, 1999. People v Reynolds, 240 Mich App 250, 253-254; 611 NW2d 316 (2000); see also MCL 769.34(1). “As a general rule, a sentence that falls within the guidelines’ range is presumed to be neither excessive nor disparate.” People v Kennebrew, 220 Mich App 601, 609; 560 NW2d 354 (1996). The presumption of the validity and fairness of a sentence within the judicial sentencing guidelines is removed if a court finds that “unusual circumstances” exist. Milbourn, supra at 660-661; People v Sharp, 192 Mich App 501, 505; 481 NW2d 773 (1992). Unusual circumstances refer to “uncommon” or “rare” factors. Sharp, supra at 505. Absent a showing of unusual circumstances, the presumption of proportionality of a sentence within the guidelines range cannot be overcome. People v Daniel, 207 Mich App 47, 54; 523 NW2d 830 (1994); Sharp, supra at 505-506. In the instant case, defendant’s sentences are presumptively proportionate because they are within the range recommended by the judicial sentencing guidelines. Defendant’s age and lack of prior criminal history are not considered to be unusual circumstances requiring a finding that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a sentence within the guidelines range. See People v Piotrowski, 211 Mich App 527, 532-533; 536 NW2d 293 (1995); Daniel, supra at 54. Moreover, we note that defendant’s conduct was particularly deplorable because he repeatedly took advantage of a five-year-old girl for his own sexual gratification. Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to the highest minimum sentence under the judicial sentencing guidelines. Affirmed. /s/ Jessica R. Cooper /s/ David H. Sawyer /s/ William B. Murphy 1 Defendant was fifty-seven-years-old during resentencing. -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.