Trial court’s compulsory use of the sentencing guidelines is erroneous.

In People v Terrell, __ Mich App __ (#321573, 9/29/2015) the Court of Appeals held under the recently decided Michigan Supreme Court opinion, People v Lockridge, __ Mich __ (2015), judicial fact-finding did not increase the minimum sentence guidelines, but a remand for the United Stated v Crosby, 397 F3d 103, 117-118 (CA 2, 2005) procedure was necessary to determine whether the error resulting from the trial court’s compulsory use of the guidelines was harmless.
 

The Court of Appeals adopted the remedy crafted in People v Stokes, __ Mich App __ (2015) as the appropriate remedy, because regardless of the fact that judicial fact-finding did not increase defendant’s minimum sentence guidelines range, the trial court’s compulsory use of the guidelines was erroneous in light of Lockridge, supra. In Stokes, supra, the Court of Appeals concluded that where judicially-found facts increased the minimum sentence guidelines range, the proper remedy was to remand for the Crosby procedure to be followed to determine whether the error was harmless. In Crosby, supra, the United States Supreme Court held that in cases in which a defendant’s minimum sentence was established by application of the sentencing guidelines in a manner that violated the Sixth Amendment, the case should be remanded to the trial court to determine whether that court would have imposed a materially different sentence but for the constitutional error. See also United States v Fagans, 406 F3d 138, 141-142 (CA 2, 2005) (remanding for resentencing, even though judicial fact-finding did not increase the guidelines range, because the compulsory use of the guidelines was erroneous).
 

In Terrell, supra, judicial fact-finding did not increase the minimum sentence guidelines because the scoring was supported by the jury verdict. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals adopted the remedy crafted in Stokes, supra as the appropriate remedy here, because regardless of the fact that judicial fact-finding did not increase defendant’s minimum sentence guidelines range, the trial court’s compulsory use of the guidelines was erroneous in light of Lockridge, supra.