People of Michigan v. Cleve Lionel Cleveland
327120
| Mich. Ct. App. | Sep 14, 2017Background
- Defendant Cleve Lionel Cleveland pleaded guilty to first-degree home invasion under MCL 750.110a(2).
- Pursuant to a Cobbs evaluation, the trial court sentenced Cleveland to 6 months minimum to 20 years maximum and ordered mental-health treatment.
- The sentencing guidelines as calculated gave a recommended minimum range of 72 to 120 months.
- The prosecutor appealed, arguing the trial court improperly departed downward without substantial and compelling reasons because the guidelines remained mandatory except where judicial fact-finding affected the range.
- The Court of Appeals addressed whether Lockridge altered the mandatory nature of the guidelines and whether the prosecutor had shown error warranting relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statutory sentencing guidelines remain mandatory except when judicial fact-finding affects the range | Guidelines are still mandatory; when judicial fact-finding did not affect the range, a substantial and compelling reasons requirement applies | Lockridge makes guidelines advisory in all cases; trial court need not articulate substantial and compelling reasons to depart | Lockridge applies: guidelines are advisory in all applications; no mandatory substantial-and-compelling requirement |
| Whether the trial court erred by imposing a 6-month minimum instead of the 72–120 months guidelines range without substantial and compelling reasons | Trial court failed to articulate substantial and compelling reasons for downward departure | Sentence need only be reviewed for reasonableness under Lockridge; prosecution did not argue reasonableness here | Prosecutor did not demonstrate reversible error; court affirmed the sentence |
| Whether the appellate court should evaluate reasonableness sua sponte beyond issues raised | N/A (prosecutor did not brief reasonableness) | Court should not craft arguments for the prosecutor or go beyond the scope of the grant of leave | Court declined to assess reasonableness because the prosecutor limited its challenge to the substantial-and-compelling question |
| Procedural scope: whether the Court could address issues beyond the leave grant | N/A | Court must adhere to the confines of the granted issues | Court adhered to its limited leave and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015) (holding Michigan sentencing guidelines are advisory and shifts appellate review to reasonableness)
- People v Cobbs, 443 Mich 276 (1993) (explains Cobbs plea procedure and judicial sentencing disclosures)
- People v Waclawski, 286 Mich App 634 (2009) (court not required to craft arguments for an appellant)