People of Michigan v. Bernard Marquiss Hill
328466
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 20, 2016Background
- On April 21, 2014, while incarcerated at West Shoreline Correctional Facility, Hill was observed with other inmates suspected of having weapons; officers detained him after he ran and resisted.
- During a search after being handcuffed, Hill produced a glove containing a ~7-inch steel spike and gave it to an officer; he was charged with prisoner in possession of a weapon (PPW), MCL 800.283(4).
- At trial Hill testified he did not possess a weapon and suggested an officer planted the spike; he alleged the strip-search occurred publicly in the housing unit lobby.
- After conviction by a jury, Hill was sentenced as an habitual fourth offender to 2.5 to 12 years. He moved for a Ginther evidentiary hearing and a new trial asserting ineffective assistance, juror partiality, suppression/failure to preserve evidence, double jeopardy, and sentencing (OV 19) errors; the trial court denied relief.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the record, declined to order a Ginther hearing, and affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel was effective; no record support for deficient performance | Counsel failed to call witnesses who would corroborate Hill’s account | No Ginther hearing required; Hill failed to identify witnesses or factual predicate; claim fails |
| Juror partiality | Juror was presumptively impartial; sidebar inquiry was sufficient | A juror knew a prosecutor’s acquaintance and was biased | No disqualification; juror stated acquaintance would not affect verdict; presumption of impartiality stands |
| Suppression / failure to preserve evidence (fingerprints, DNA, video) | No Brady or preservation violation shown | Police/prosecution suppressed or failed to preserve exculpatory evidence | No factual showing that such evidence existed or was suppressed or destroyed in bad faith; claim fails |
| Double jeopardy from MDOC discipline | Double jeopardy not implicated unless prior court prosecution occurred | MDOC already punished Hill administratively for the same conduct | MDOC is not a court of justice; no double jeopardy protection applies |
| OV 19 (judicial fact‑finding) / reasonableness of minimum | Jury’s guilty verdict supports that possession threatened prison security | Judicial fact‑finding improperly increased score; minimum sentence unreasonable | OV 19 properly scored 25 points because possession by a prisoner implicitly threatened security; no plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (performance and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v. Ginther, 390 Mich. 436 (Michigan standard for evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance)
- People v. Bosca, 310 Mich. App. 1 (Brady analysis and test for suppressed evidence)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (test for failure to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence requires bad faith)
- People v. Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358 (review standard for preserved/unpreserved sentencing claims post-Booker/Apprendi developments)
- People v. Ream, 481 Mich. 223 (overview of double jeopardy protections)
- People v. Johnson, 245 Mich. App. 243 (presumption of juror competence and impartiality)