People of Michigan v. Marty Ray Mitchell

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED June 10, 2025 Plaintiff-Appellee, 10:26 AM v No. 373722 Cheboygan Circuit Court MARTY RAY MITCHELL, LC No. 2022-006430-FH Defendant-Appellant. Before: MARIANI, P.J., and MALDONADO and YOUNG, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant pleaded guilty to operating while intoxicated, third offense (OWI-III), MCL 257.625(1); MCL 257.625(9)(c), and was sentenced to serve three to five years’ imprisonment. Defendant appeals by leave granted,1 challenging his sentence. We vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for resentencing. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On August 21, 2022, two officers conducted a traffic stop of defendant. During the stop, the officers detected a strong smell of marijuana coming from inside of defendant’s truck and saw that defendant had “watery, glassy, bloodshot eyes.” Defendant also admitted to the officers that he did not have insurance for the truck. The officers cited defendant for having no insurance but offered him 10 minutes to procure it to avoid having the vehicle towed. When the officers returned to defendant’s truck, defendant stated that he had not gotten insurance. Defendant then rolled up his window and drove off with the officers in pursuit. Defendant subsequently stopped at a local park but refused to get out of his truck when the officers repeatedly ordered him to do so. The officers called for backup and additional officers arrived shortly thereafter, but defendant continued to refuse to get out of his truck. Following a 30-minute standoff, the officers ultimately broke defendant’s window to forcibly remove him from the truck. As the officers attempted to 1 People v Mitchell, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered January 21, 2025 (Docket No. 373722). -1- remove defendant from the truck, he kicked at them and refused to let go of the steering wheel. It ultimately took four officers to remove defendant from the truck, put him in restraints, and arrest him. A search of defendant’s truck revealed two bottles of liquor, a fanny pack containing marijuana residue, a marijuana pipe, and a half-smoked marijuana joint. Defendant’s subsequent blood draw was positive for THC at a level indicating recent use. Following his arrest, defendant was charged as a fourth-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.12, with OWI-III; fourth-degree fleeing and eluding, MCL 750.479a(2); operating a motor vehicle without security, MCL 500.3102; transportation or possession of an open container of alcohol in a motor vehicle, MCL 257.624a; and five counts of resisting or obstructing a police officer, MCL 750.81d(1). Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to OWI-III in exchange for dismissal of all other charges and withdrawal of the notice to enhance his sentence based on his fourth-habitual status. The trial court departed upward from the advisory minimum sentencing guidelines range of one to two years’ imprisonment and sentenced defendant as described. Defendant subsequently applied for leave to appeal to this Court, which was granted. II. DEPARTURE SENTENCE Defendant argues that he is entitled to resentencing because the trial court imposed an unreasonable and disproportionate upward departure from his advisory minimum sentencing guidelines range. While defendant has not shown error in the trial court’s threshold decision that a departure sentence was warranted, we agree with defendant (and the prosecution) that the court did not sufficiently justify the extent of its departure sentence. We therefore vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for resentencing. “A sentence that departs from the applicable guidelines range will be reviewed by an appellate court for reasonableness.” People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358, 392; 870 NW2d 502 (2015). Whether the trial court imposed a reasonable sentence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. People v Steanhouse, 500 Mich 453, 476; 902 NW2d 327 (2017). “An unreasonable sentence amounts to an abuse of discretion and a sentence is unreasonable if the trial court failed to follow the principle of proportionality or failed to provide adequate reasons for the extent of the departure from the sentencing guidelines.” People v Sherrill, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW