People of Michigan v. Antonio Markese Cummings
331176
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 6, 2017Background
- Defendant convicted by jury of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (oral penetration) against his stepdaughter S (age 8) and biological daughter T (age 4); also convicted of impersonating a public officer (not challenged).
- Trial court sentenced defendant as a third-offense habitual offender to two consecutive terms of 30–60 years for the CSC I convictions.
- This Court initially affirmed consecutive sentences; Michigan Supreme Court vacated that portion and remanded for the trial court to either explain why the offenses were the "same transaction" or resentence.
- On remand the trial court issued an opinion finding the two assaults occurred on the same day with little time between them and again imposed consecutive sentences.
- Record evidence: S was assaulted in the morning before school and returned home about 4:00 p.m.; T testified her assault happened "a long time" before she told S, and could not place it as the same day; no clear evidence of a continuous time sequence or causal connection between the two assaults.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the two CSC I offenses "arose from the same transaction" under MCL 750.520b(3) to permit consecutive sentences | The court (plaintiff) argued the assaults occurred the same morning in quick succession, showing sequential targeting and no relevant disruption in the flow of events | Cummings argued the record did not show the assaults grew out of a continuous time sequence or had a causal connection; T indicated the event and disclosure were "a long time" apart | Reversed: court held trial court plainly erred — record lacks evidence of a continuous time sequence or causal connection, so consecutive sentencing under the statute was not supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Kimble v. People, 470 Mich 305 (plain-error standard for unpreserved claims)
- Carines v. People, 460 Mich 750 (plain-error test requiring clear or obvious error affecting substantial rights)
- People v. Ryan, 295 Mich App 388 (statutory interpretation of "same transaction" and "arising from")
- People v. Cummings, 498 Mich 895 (Supreme Court order vacating appellate affirmance and remanding for explanation or resentencing)