People of Michigan v. Bobby Maurice Cochran
334331
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 16, 2017Background
- Defendant Cochran was convicted by a jury of multiple vehicle-related felonies (failure to stop causing serious impairment; operating with suspended license causing serious impairment; felonious assault; and operating with a suspended license) and sentenced as a fourth habitual offender.
- Original minimum sentences included 76 months for several counts (within a guidelines range of 19–76 months) and a concurrent 76-month-to-15-year term for felonious assault, plus six months in jail on a separate count.
- On initial direct appeal this Court found improper scoring of certain PRVs and OVs and Alleyne violations and remanded for resentencing.
- At resentencing the trial court imposed 76-month minimums again; defendant appealed arguing the appellate court should review the reasonableness of those within-guidelines sentences.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding MCL 769.34(10) requires affirmance of a within-guidelines minimum unless there was a scoring error or reliance on inaccurate information; defendant did not show either.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Cochran) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate court should independently review the reasonableness of a within-guidelines minimum sentence | Affirm sentences should be affirmed under MCL 769.34(10) absent scoring error or inaccurate information | Urged the court to review substantive reasonableness despite within-guidelines status, relying on Rita and Lockridge principles | Affirmed: MCL 769.34(10) controls; within-guidelines minimum must be affirmed absent scoring error or inaccurate information |
| Whether MCL 769.34(10) remains valid after Lockridge | Statutory mandate still binding unless shown to conflict with Lockridge | Argues Lockridge undermines the statutory presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentences | Court: Lockridge did not invalidate MCL 769.34(10); Lockridge only severed provisions making guidelines mandatory where based on facts not found by jury or admitted |
| Relevance of federal precedent Rita v. United States to state sentencing review | State statutory rule controls; Rita is only limited guidance | Cites Rita to argue presumption of reasonableness is non-binding and appellate courts may review reasonableness | Court: Rita is inapposite because Michigan statute prescribes the standard and Lockridge did not nullify MCL 769.34(10) |
| Whether any scoring error or inaccurate information justified resentencing | No showing at resentencing that scoring errors or inaccurate info remained | Defendant did not and could not show reliance on inaccurate information or remaining scoring errors | Court: No challenge to scoring or factual inaccuracies on resentencing; thus affirms under MCL 769.34(10) |
Key Cases Cited
- Lockridge v. Michigan, 498 Mich. 358 (2015) (held mandatory application of guidelines based on judge-found facts violated Sixth Amendment and made guidelines advisory)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (federal courts may apply a presumption of reasonableness to within-Guidelines sentences)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (any fact that increases mandatory minimum must be found by jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. Schrauben, 314 Mich. App. 181 (2016) (confirmed MCL 769.34(10) remains applicable post-Lockridge)
- People v. Francisco, 474 Mich. 82 (2006) (de novo review of guideline interpretation)
- People v. Steanhouse, 500 Mich. 453 (2017) (noted appellate review for reasonableness of departure sentences; did not decide MCL 769.34(10)’s survival post-Lockridge)