People of Michigan v. Carlton Cordell Cantrell
326931
| Mich. Ct. App. | Aug 18, 2016Background
- Defendant Carlton Cantrell was convicted by a jury of armed robbery after a victim identified him at the scene about 30 minutes after the ATM robbery; surveillance video and recovered property tied to the theft.
- Police apprehended Cantrell fleeing near the scene; the victim made a positive on-scene identification and identified him again at trial.
- A recorded jail phone call purportedly containing an inculpatory statement by Cantrell was admitted at trial.
- At sentencing the trial court scored several offense variables (OVs) including OV 1, 4, 9, 10, and 19, which raised the guidelines minimum range substantially.
- On appeal Cantrell challenged (1) ineffective assistance for failing to suppress the on-scene ID and for not presenting an eyewitness-expert; (2) admission of the jail phone recording; and (3) scoring of OVs and judicial fact-finding under the Sixth Amendment.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, reversed the OV 4 scoring, upheld OV 10, and remanded for a Crosby/Lockridge proceeding regarding advisory guidelines sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Cantrell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance — failure to move to suppress on-scene ID | On-scene ID was reliable given close proximity, attention, promptness, and certainty | Counsel was deficient for not moving to suppress an unduly suggestive on-scene ID | Denied. ID was not unduly suggestive; counsel not ineffective for failing to raise a futile motion |
| 2. Ineffective assistance — failure to call eyewitness-identification expert | Cross-examination and video evidence were sufficient; expert unnecessary | Counsel was deficient for not presenting expert on eyewitness unreliability | Denied. Decision to rely on cross-examination and jury instructions was reasonable strategy |
| 3. Admissibility of jail phone recording | Proper foundation laid by jail recording procedures and officer who recognized voice | Recording lacked proper foundation/identification | Denied. Foundation adequate (record-keeping testimony and officer familiarity) |
| 4. Sentencing — OV scoring and Sixth Amendment judicial fact-finding | OVs were properly scored based on trial evidence; guidelines applied | Judicial fact-finding on OVs increased guidelines range in violation of Sixth Amendment | Mixed. OV 4 (10 pts) reversed for lack of preponderance evidence; OV 10 upheld. Because OVs not admitted/found by jury, remand for Crosby/Lockridge inquiry required |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015) (holding mandatory guidelines that permit judicial fact-finding to increase minimum sentence violate the Sixth Amendment; courts must apply Crosby procedure)
- People v. Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich 38 (2012) (standard of review for ineffective assistance claims: mixed question—facts for clear error; constitutional issues de novo)
- People v. Vaughn, 491 Mich 642 (2012) (Strickland standard applied in Michigan; requirement to show deficient performance and prejudice)
- People v. Huston, 489 Mich 451 (2011) (defining "predatory conduct" for OV 10 and when victim vulnerability may be exploited)
- People v. Cannon, 481 Mich 152 (2008) (distinguishing predatory conduct from ordinary planning; defining victim vulnerability)
- United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005) (procedural framework used in Michigan post-Lockridge to determine whether a different sentence would have been imposed)