People of Michigan v. Bradley Dean McKelvey
334346
Mich. Ct. App.Nov 7, 2017Background
- Defendant (McKelvey) pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine; codefendant Leonard pleaded guilty to operating a meth lab and related offenses.
- Leonard rented a house from the Millers; defendant lived there but was not on the lease and did not pay rent. Law enforcement searched the house after a tip and found meth-related paraphernalia and ingredients.
- The Millers incurred expenses for testing, cleaning, replacing furnishings, lost rental income, and supplies; prosecutor sought $18,889.03 restitution jointly and severally against McKelvey and Leonard.
- At the restitution hearing the trial court found McKelvey likely knew of or participated in production and ordered full restitution of $18,889.03. The court also refused to remove a victim impact statement from the presentence investigation report (PSIR).
- McKelvey appealed only his sentence (restitution amount and PSIR inclusion); the Court of Appeals reviewed statutory restitution law and PSIR challenge procedures and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court could order restitution for damages caused by manufacture/operation of a meth lab when defendant was convicted only of simple possession | Millers/prosecution: restitution for testing, cleaning, repairs, lost rent flowed from the conduct at the house and should be awarded against both roommates | McKelvey: restitution must be tied to the course of conduct that "gives rise to" his conviction (possession); cannot be based on uncharged or unconvicted conduct (manufacture/operation) | Reversed in part: trial court erred to the extent restitution was based on conduct that did not give rise to McKelvey’s possession conviction; remand to quantify restitution attributable to the possession offense only |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to remove the victim impact statement from the PSIR | Prosecution/victim: victim impact statement is statutorily permitted and relevant; court properly considered it | McKelvey: victim impact statement irrelevant because possession (his conviction) typically has no victim and the statement reflected harms from lab operation | Not resolved on merits: court affirmed trial court’s discretion but remanded for reconsideration of the PSIR inclusion in light of the recalculated restitution and to allow the trial court to explain its reasoning |
Key Cases Cited
- People v McKinley, 496 Mich. 410; 852 N.W.2d 770 (2014) (restitution must be causally tied to the defendant’s course of conduct that gives rise to the conviction)
- People v Beasley, 239 Mich. App. 548; 609 N.W.2d 581 (2000) (appellate courts bound to follow Supreme Court precedent on restitution scope)
- People v Waclawski, 286 Mich. App. 634; 780 N.W.2d 321 (2009) (trial court has broad discretion regarding sources included in sentencing materials, including victim impact statements)
- People v Lloyd, 284 Mich. App. 703; 774 N.W.2d 347 (2009) (when a PSIR entry is challenged, court must allow hearing and make/find decision on accuracy or relevancy)