People of Michigan v. Constella Dionne Manier
334504
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 14, 2017Background
- Defendant pleaded no contest in three cases to multiple counts of uttering and publishing, forgery of state ID cards, and solicitation; sentenced Jan 5, 2016 as a fourth-offense habitual offender to concurrent 30–240 month terms.
- Defendant filed a motion for resentencing arguing the trial court abused its discretion and engaged in impermissible judicial fact-finding when scoring offense variables (OVs) under the sentencing guidelines; motion denied Aug 8, 2016.
- Trial court had scored OV 13 (continuing pattern of criminal behavior) and OV 14 (leader in a multiple-offender situation) at 10 points each based largely on the presentence investigation report (PSIR) detailing multiple fraudulent check/ID incidents involving defendant, her daughter, niece, and another recruit.
- Defendant argued her plea admissions did not support the OV scores and relied on Lockridge and related authority to contend that judge-found facts increasing guideline ranges are unconstitutional unless admitted or found by a jury.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and factual findings for clear error/preponderance of the evidence and affirmed the denial of resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying resentencing | Resentencing denial was appropriate because judge properly applied advisory guidelines and findings were supported | Trial court impermissibly engaged in judicial fact-finding to score OVs beyond plea admissions, requiring resentencing | Denial affirmed; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether judicial fact-finding for OV scoring violates Lockridge | Prosecutor/court: Lockridge made guidelines advisory; judicial fact-finding for scoring remains permissible | Defendant: Lockridge forbids using judge-found facts to increase guideline range absent admission/jury finding | Court: Lockridge permits judicial fact-finding when guidelines are advisory; scoring by judge is constitutional |
| Proper scoring of OV 13 (continuing pattern) | PSIR and record show multiple episodes and numerous acts supporting 10 points | Plea admissions alone did not support OV 13; should be scored zero | OV 13 properly scored 10 points based on PSIR and multiple criminal episodes |
| Proper scoring of OV 14 (leader role) | PSIR shows defendant directed, recruited, and participated with daughter, niece, and recruited a third person; supports leader score | Plea record insufficient to support leader finding; should be zero | OV 14 properly scored 10 points considering entire criminal transactions and defendant's role |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Puckett, 178 Mich App 224 (trial court abuse of discretion standard on resentencing)
- People v Johnson, 298 Mich App 128 (courts may consider PSIR and other record evidence to calculate OVs)
- People v Gibbs, 299 Mich App 473 (OV 13 guidance; multiple offenses in scoring)
- People v Jones, 299 Mich App 284 (definition and scope of "multiple offender situation" for OV 14)
- People v Rhodes, 305 Mich App 85 (OV 14 leader analysis — primary causal or coordinating agent)
- People v Blevins, 314 Mich App 339 (discussed Lockridge-related plain-error framework)
- People v Biddles, 316 Mich App 148 (judicial fact-finding remains part of advisory guideline scoring post-Lockridge)
- People v Everett, 318 Mich App 511 (abuse of discretion review standard)
- People v Hardy, 494 Mich 430 (OV factual findings reviewed for clear error; application of facts to law reviewed de novo)
- People v Francisco, 474 Mich 82 (statutory interpretation and application of sentencing guidelines)
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (guidelines rendered advisory; remedial framework for judge-found facts)