COA 375061 PEOPLE OF MI V LARRY JAMES BAILEY Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 7/22/2026

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
-1-
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
UNPUBLISHED
July 22, 2026
1:46 PM
v No. 375061
Wayne Circuit Court
LARRY JAMES BAILEY, LC No. 89-008926-01-FC
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: MALDONADO, P.J., and RIORDAN and YOUNG, JJ.
YOUNG, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
The majority opinion accurately relays the facts underlying Mr. Bailey’s conviction. I
concur in large part, but dissent because I believe that the correct remedy for a court’s failure to
support its sentence is only resentencing, not remanding for explanation. People v Mason, ___
Mich App ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2024) (Docket No. 367687); slip op at 7.
A sentence that is unsupported by the record is unreasonable. People v Dixon-Bey, 321
Mich App 490, 523-525; 909 NW2d 458 (2017) (“It is our view that the 15-year upward departure
was unreasonable and that, in light of the record before us, the trial court abused its discretion by
violating the principle of proportionality. . . . In this case, the trial court did not adequately explain
why a minimum sentence of 35 years was more proportionate than a different sentence within the
guidelines would have been.”) (emphasis added). A remand is the only appropriate remedy where
a sentence is unreasonable. Id at 532; see also, People v Smith, 482 Mich 292, 311; 754 NW2d
284 (2008) (where the trial court sentenced Smith to a departure sentence of double the guidelines
range without valid explanation, the Supreme Court vacated the sentence). Because the trial court
did not explain why Mr. Bailey’s sentence was reasonable and proportionate given the then-
existing guidelines and the factors accounted for therein, I would remand to the trial court for
resentencing.
/s/ Adrienne N. Young

-- 1 of 1 --