People of Michigan v. Crystal L Shelton-Randolph
335044
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 28, 2017Background
- Defendant Shelton-Randolph pled nolo contendere to amended count of second-degree murder for the death of her 2‑year‑old son; original charges included felony murder, first‑degree child abuse, and first‑degree criminal sexual conduct; charged in connection with a prior death of the child’s twin sister were not reissued.
- She was sentenced to 180–600 months’ imprisonment; the judgment initially required SORA registration and lifetime electronic monitoring on parole.
- The trial court later amended the judgment to reflect SORA registration as a tier I offender (catchall provision) and removed lifetime electronic monitoring; the court did not follow required pre‑sentencing SORA procedures or place full findings on the record.
- Defendant challenged the trial court’s SORA procedure and the scoring of offense variables (OVs) 1, 2, 7, 12, and 19 under the sentencing guidelines.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, vacated the portion of the judgment requiring sex‑offender registration, remanded for a proper SORA determination under the catchall provision, and corrected OV 11 and OV 19 scoring errors but denied resentencing because the guideline range remained unchanged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly ordered SORA registration under the catchall without following MCL 28.724(5) and making required findings | Prosecutor urged registration based on facts showing sexual conduct and requested registration and monitoring | Shelton‑Randolph argued court failed to follow statutory pre‑sentencing registration procedures and failed to place the catchall determination on the record | Court vacated SORA registration portion of judgment and remanded for a pre‑sentencing hearing and on‑the‑record findings before imposing any registration requirement |
| Whether OV 1 (aggravated use of a weapon) was correctly scored at 10 points | Prosecution relied on medical testimony indicating foreign object and blunt‑force injuries consistent with a weapon/touching by object | Defendant disputed lack of direct evidence of weapon use | Court held 10 points supported by preponderance of evidence (injuries consistent with foreign object and blunt force) |
| Whether OV 2 (lethal potential of weapon) was correctly scored at 1 point | Prosecution argued injuries (rectal trauma, blunt force) warranted at least minimal weapon score | Defendant argued no weapon shown | Court held 1 point properly scored based on evidence of potentially lethal blunt force and foreign‑object trauma |
| Whether OV 7 (aggravated physical abuse) was correctly scored at 50 points | Prosecution argued injuries showed torture/excessive brutality | Defendant argued injuries could reflect fall/CPR, not sadism/torture | Court held 50 points supported (series of severe injuries showed torture/excessive brutality) |
| Whether OV 12 (contemporaneous felonious acts) was correctly scored at 10 points | Prosecution maintained dismissed child‑abuse and CSC‑I conduct could be counted as contemporaneous acts | Defendant argued dismissed charges cannot be scored | Court held OV 12 correctly scored: contemporaneous acts may be considered even if dismissed, and evidence supported separate acts (child abuse and CSC) |
| Whether OV 19 (interference with administration of justice) was correctly scored at 10 points | Prosecution argued defendant gave misinformation to EMT/deputy and downplayed injuries, interfering with investigation | Defendant argued statements to medical personnel and initial inconsistent explanations did not interfere with justice | Court held OV 19 was erroneously scored; 0 points warranted (lying to EMT did not interfere with administration of justice), but corrected score did not change guideline range so no resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain‑error standard for unpreserved claim)
- People v Golba, 273 Mich. App. 603 (SORA catchall and need for factual findings)
- People v Meyers, 250 Mich. App. 637 (elements of catchall application)
- People v Lee, 489 Mich. 289 (procedural requirements for SORA registration; postsentencing determination inappropriate)
- People v Hardy, 494 Mich. 430 (standard for OV factual findings)
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358 (sentencing court must consult guidelines)
- People v Morson, 471 Mich. 248 (requirement to score PRVs and OVs)
- People v Roper, 286 Mich. App. 77 (elements of second‑degree murder)
- People v Billings, 283 Mich. App. 538 (dismissed charges may be considered for OV 12)
- People v Light, 290 Mich. App. 717 (contemporaneous acts must be separate from sentencing offense)
- People v Smith, 488 Mich. 193 (post‑offense conduct may be considered for OV 19)
- People v Portellos, 298 Mich. App. 431 (lying to emergency medical personnel does not constitute interference with administration of justice)
- People v Francisco, 474 Mich. 82 (resentencing required only when corrected guidelines change range)