People of Michigan v. David Lyle Dye
334062
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 14, 2017Background
- Defendant David Dye was convicted by a jury of armed robbery, first-degree home invasion, felon in possession of a firearm, larceny in a building, felonious assault, and felony-firearm arising from an entry into Tiffanie Douglas’s home on July 28–29, 2015.
- Douglas identified Dye (a person she had seen several times before) as one of two armed intruders who forced her to strip, threatened her, and stole her television and Xbox.
- Defendant was sentenced as a third-offense habitual offender to lengthy prison terms; his armed-robbery sentence was later reduced on resentencing from 35–life to 30–55 years.
- On appeal, defense counsel argued insufficient evidence of identity and Lockridge-related Sixth Amendment error in OV scoring; defendant separately alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for investigative and trial choices.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: it found identity proven beyond a reasonable doubt, judicial factfinding on OVs did not violate Lockridge as applied, OV 4, 7, and 19 were supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and ineffective-assistance claims failed on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to identify defendant | Prosecution: Douglas’s eyewitness testimony and related evidence identified Dye as a perpetrator | Dye: eyewitness identification was unreliable/inconsistent | Held: Evidence sufficient; jury could reasonably find Dye guilty beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Sixth Amendment challenge to OV-based sentencing (Lockridge) | Prosecution: Trial court may still score and consider OVs; Lockridge made guidelines advisory, not forbidding factual scoring | Dye: Judicial fact-finding for OVs violated Sixth Amendment because facts weren’t found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt | Held: No Lockridge violation in procedure; court may consider facts not proved to jury; OV findings reviewed for preponderance and were supported |
| Specific OV scores (OV 4, 7, 19) | Prosecution: OV 4 (psych injury), OV 7 (aggravated physical abuse), OV 19 (court security/interference) supported by Douglas’s testimony, victim impact statement, and post-verdict assault on deputies | Dye: Argued scores improperly assessed or unsupported | Held: OV 4 (10 pts), OV 7 (50 pts), OV 19 (25 pts) all supported by a preponderance of the evidence |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to investigate/call witnesses, juror strike, evidentiary objections) | Prosecution: Counsel’s choices were reasonable strategy; record does not support omitted-witness claims; objections would have been meritless | Dye: Counsel failed to investigate/call alibi witnesses, should have struck Juror 3, and should have objected to photographic evidence | Held: Claims fail—no record support of deficient performance or prejudice; juror and strategy decisions reasonable; photograph authenticated so objection would be meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (Michigan Supreme Court) (made Michigan sentencing guidelines advisory due to Sixth Amendment concerns)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (U.S. Supreme Court) (mandatory factfinding that increases a statutory minimum must be found by a jury)
- People v. Smith, 488 Mich 193 (Michigan Supreme Court) (post-offense conduct may be considered when scoring certain OVs)
- People v. Hardy, 494 Mich 430 (Michigan Supreme Court) (OV factual determinations reviewed for clear error and must be supported by a preponderance)
- People v. Stokes, 312 Mich App 181 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (harmless-error review for preserved Lockridge errors)