People of Michigan v. Alfred Jamal Ollison
327492
Mich. Ct. App.Sep 27, 2016Background
- In July 2013 Alfred Ollison shot at Torrance Glen, injuring him; Ollison was later arrested and tried by jury.
- Convicted of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder (MCL 750.84), felon-in-possession (MCL 750.224f), and felony-firearm (MCL 750.227b); originally sentenced within a 29–57 month guidelines range.
- This Court accepted the prosecutor’s confession of error about scoring, vacated the sentences, and remanded for resentencing to correct Prior Record Variables (PRVs).
- At resentencing the trial court adjusted PRV scores (PRV 1, PRV 2, PRV 5), recalculated the guidelines (19–57 months as a third habitual offender), refused to order a new PSIR/SIR, and reimposed the same sentences.
- Ollison appealed, arguing the court erred by declining an updated PSIR and that resentencing violated his Sixth Amendment rights under People v Lockridge because the judge believed the guidelines were mandatory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court refusal to order updated PSIR/SIR before resentencing | Court relied on the original PSIR and parties agreed on recalculated guidelines; no updated report required | PSIR was a year old and did not reflect significant change (incarceration conduct); defendant was entitled to updated PSIR/SIR | No abuse of discretion; prior PSIR was reasonably updated and parties provided MDOC records at hearing |
| Sixth Amendment claim under Lockridge (mandatory guidelines/judicial factfinding) | Sentencing conformed to then-governing (pre-Lockridge) law; judge corrected scoring and imposed within guidelines | Judicial factfinding (scoring OV/PRV) produced the guidelines floor; judge believed bound by the range, violating Sixth Amendment | Remand for a Crosby hearing under Lockridge to determine if court would have imposed a materially different sentence absent the constitutional error |
| Whether resentencing must be before a different judge (judicial disqualification) | Not argued by plaintiff (prosecution) | Trial judge showed bias; refused to individualize/consider rehabilitation and insisted on same sentence | Plain-error review fails for defendant; no showing of actual personal bias or circumstances warranting reassignment |
| Whether sentences should be reviewed for reasonableness under Lockridge | N/A | Defendant argues sentences unreasonable under Lockridge | Not applicable here: sentences fell within correctly calculated guidelines and thus are not subject to Lockridge reasonableness review; Crosby remand still required |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (advisory guidelines remedy; Sixth Amendment constraint requires Crosby remand)
- United States v Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (remand procedure for determining whether resentencing is necessary)
- People v Triplett, 407 Mich 510 (PSIR must be reasonably updated to be used at resentencing)
- People v Hemphill, 439 Mich 576 (factors indicating a PSIR is not reasonably updated)
- People v Stokes, 312 Mich App 181 (procedure for Crosby remands)