734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

CRIMINAL 19: Sentencing guidelines are advisory.

In this case, there is no doubt that defendant assaulted and seriously injured the victim; she also destroyed the victim’s and his wife’s property.  Defendant and the victim engaged in an affair for more than five years. The victim was a wealthy, middle-aged married man; defendant, a substantially younger single woman. These offenses arose during a weekend that the two spent at the victim’s vacation home.

Defendant became increasingly frustrated with what she believed was the slow pace of the victim’s divorce proceeding. The victim, however, had withdrawn his divorce action months earlier, apparently without informing defendant. Moreover, on this weekend, defendant discovered an item leading her to conclude that the victim continued to engage in conjugal relations with his spouse. Excessive alcohol use also appears to have contributed to defendant’s destructive and assaultive behavior.

Conviction

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder (AWIGBH), malicious destruction of personal property valued at less than $200, domestic violence, malicious destruction of a building between $200 and $1,000, and resisting or obstructing a police officer.

Sentencing

The trial court imposed a sentence of two years’ probation, with the first five months to be served in county jail, for the AWIGBH conviction, a three-day jail sentence, with credit for time served, for the malicious destruction of personal property, malicious destruction of a building, and resisting or obstructing convictions; a thirty-day jail sentence for the domestic violence conviction; and a three-month jail sentence for the felonious assault conviction.

Sentencing Guidelines

The prosecution argued that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a downward departing sentence. The sentencing guidelines are advisory, and although a trial court must determine the applicable guidelines range and take it into account when imposing a sentence, the court is not required to sentence a defendant within that range.

The trial court noted that the prosecution had earlier offered defendant an opportunity to plead guilty to felonious assault and the misdemeanor malicious-destruction offenses in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charges. Defendant, however, declined what the court offer by the prosecution. If defendant had accepted the prosecution’s offer, the sentencing guidelines’ recommendation would have been 0 to 17 months’ imprisonment.

Criminal Defense Experience

When you are facing criminal charges it is important to quickly secure effective legal representation. As a client of Aldrich Legal Services, you will benefit from working with Michigan criminal lawyers who have defended thousands of clients facing criminal charges.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

PROBATE 51: Trust filed a petition to determine title to credit union account.

The probate court explained that the owners of the account are S and J. When S passes, J becomes the owner of the account. J is the one who had the authority to make the designation. Nowhere in any documents is there a designation by J that SJ be the owner -- or the beneficiary of the account. The designation made by his father was no longer binding because he was no longer the owner at the time J passed away.

Invoking Your Right to Remain Silent

Originally posted on 07/19/2017 While the “right to remain silent” represents one of your most inalienable rights, many people have a few misconceptions about how it works. Many people receive their understanding of this...

Arrests made by tracking cell phones may be illegal

Originally posted on 02/10/2017 Law enforcement agencies are always looking for an edge in fighting crime. As cell phones have become an indispensable part of life for many people, authorities have taken to using these devices to track...

Could I lose my job over a drunk driving arrest?

Originally posted on 01/20/2017 When potential clients ask us questions about criminal defense representation (particularly for drunk driving offenses) one of the most common is whether they will lose their job.  Naturally, this...

FAMILY LAW 77: Court awarded plaintiff sole legal custody; defendant was unwilling to work with plaintiff.

For joint custody to work, parents must be able to agree with each other on basic issues in child rearing including health care, religion, education, day to day decision making and discipline and they must be willing to cooperate with each other in joint decision making. If two equally capable parents are unable to cooperate and to agree generally concerning important decisions affecting the welfare of their children, the court has no alternative but to determine which parent shall have sole custody of the children.

Basic responsibilities of an executor

Originally posted on 01/11/2017 The emotional toils of dealing with the death of a loved one can be considerably difficult. Nevertheless, perseverance is paramount; especially if you are appointed to be an executor to one’s...

What you need to compliment your will

Originally posted on 02/08/2017 Making end-of-life plans usually end with a will, but they shouldn't. Some believe that simply having a will is enough. However, this post will briefly explain how having other estate planning...

The benefits of home health care providers

Originally posted on 03/22/2017 As we get older or suffer an injury, we need a little extra help. Home health care providers or caregivers can provide the assistance needed to handle your or your loved one's health and safety...

What to know about bail conditions

Originally posted on 03/06/2017 If you have been arrested and are being held on the suspicion that you have committed a particular crime, chances are that the only thing you are thinking about is getting out of jail as soon as possible and...

College students and estate planning

Originally posted on 12/16/2016 With college semesters starting up in Michigan, it may not be so easy to get college students to think responsibly. This time can be especially tough with the need of moving back to school and getting...

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
consultation
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000
734-237-6482
734-366-4405