People of Michigan v. Darrell Antoin Winters
334381
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 21, 2017Background
- In 2013 Winters was tried for armed robbery, felony-firearm, and felon-in-possession; a jury convicted him of armed robbery but acquitted him of the firearm charges.
- He was initially sentenced as a third habitual offender to 14–21 years’ imprisonment.
- On direct appeal this Court affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing to correct scoring of Offense Variable (OV) 1.
- At resentencing the trial court scored OV 1 (aggravated use of a weapon) and OV 2 (lethal potential) based on judicial fact-finding (victim testimony that a firearm was pointed), raising Winters’s OV total and advisory guidelines range, but the court reimposed the original 14–21 year sentence.
- Winters appealed the resentencing, arguing Lockridge error (impermissible judicial fact‑finding increasing a mandatory minimum), and also raised (in propria persona filings) claims about jury instructions, sufficiency of the evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: it held Lockridge’s remedy (making the guidelines advisory) was applied at resentencing; judicial fact‑finding for advisory guideline scoring is permissible; and the other claims were outside the limited scope of the remand or foreclosed by the law-of-the-case doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lockridge entitles Winters to resentencing because the court used judge-found facts to score OVs that increased the minimum range | State: Lockridge renders guidelines advisory; court must consult but is not bound | Winters: Scoring OVs 1 and 2 on judge-found facts violated his Sixth Amendment rights and required resentencing | Held: No resentencing. Court applied Lockridge (guidelines advisory), so judicial fact-finding for advisory scoring is constitutional |
| Whether the court could rely on conduct underlying acquitted firearm charges to score OVs | State: A court may consider acquittals/unproven conduct by a preponderance at sentencing | Winters: Using conduct supporting acquitted charges to increase guideline range is improper | Held: Court may consider uncharged/pending/acquitted conduct by preponderance when scoring OVs |
| Whether post-appeal motions (new trial, directed verdict) and request for Ginther hearing were properly before the court on remand | State: The remand was limited to resentencing; other claims must proceed under MCR 6.500; law-of-the-case bars relitigation | Winters: Sought reconsideration of instruction/sufficiency claims and IAC Ginther hearing | Held: These claims were outside the limited remand and/or foreclosed by prior panel decision; they were not properly before the court on resentencing |
| Whether other OV scores (OV 8, OV 9, OV 12, OV 19) were improperly based on judge-found facts | State: Judicial fact-finding for advisory guidelines is permissible; record shows OVs 12 and 19 corrected to zero | Winters: Contended multiple OVs were improperly scored on non-jury findings | Held: No error; scoring based on judicial findings was permissible and OVs 12 and 19 were corrected to zero |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (Michigan Supreme Court) (made Michigan guidelines advisory to cure Sixth Amendment constitutional defect)
- Alleyne v United States, 570 U.S. 99 (U.S. Supreme Court) (facts increasing mandatory minimum must be found by a jury)
- People v Biddles, 316 Mich App 148 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (judicial fact-finding is permissible where guidelines are advisory)
- People v Stokes, 312 Mich App 181 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (discusses Lockridge remedy and scoring under advisory framework)
- People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 (Michigan Supreme Court) (standard for evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel)