People of Michigan v. David Henry Johnson
334145
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jan 4, 2018Background
- Defendant David Henry Johnson was convicted by jury in August 2013 of multiple methamphetamine-related offenses, including operating/maintaining a meth lab (second or subsequent), delivery/manufacture (second or subsequent), and possession (second or subsequent).
- Trial court sentenced concurrent terms: 10–20 years for operating/manufacturing and 2–10 years for possession; sentences to run consecutively to any parole sentence.
- This Court previously affirmed; the Michigan Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded solely for the Lockridge/Crosby-style inquiry whether the trial court would have imposed a materially different sentence absent the mandatory guidelines constraint.
- On remand the trial court held a Crosby hearing and reimposed the same sentences; defendant appealed the resentencing.
- Issues on remand included whether the sentences were unreasonable under Lockridge/Steanhouse, whether OV 14 was properly scored, and whether the trial court properly amended the judgment to show sentences consecutive to parole.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonableness of sentence under Lockridge/Steanhouse | Sentences are within guideline range and lawful | Sentences (10–20 years) are unreasonable | Affirmed: minimums (120 months) fall within 78–130 month guidelines; MCL 769.34(10) requires affirmance absent scoring error or inaccurate info, so Lockridge review not triggered |
| Scoring of OV 14 (aggravating role) | OV 14 was properly scored based on record evidence | OV 14 improperly scored; no proof defendant was leader | Rejected: issue was previously decided on direct appeal; law-of-the-case bars relitigation and trial court bound by prior holding |
| Scope of remand / Standard 4 ineffective-confrontation claims | Remand limited to Lockridge procedure only | Seeks to raise additional preexisting issues and challenges | Only resentencing issues are reviewable; peripheral claims outside remand not considered |
| Amendment of judgment to state sentences consecutive to parole | Amended judgment corrected clerical omission consistent with oral rulings | Amendment was made without motion or notice, improperly altering sentence | Affirmed: issue unpreserved but amendment remedied a clerical oversight consistent with sentencing court’s oral pronouncements and authorized under court rules |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (constitutional requirement to treat guidelines as advisory)
- People v Steanhouse, 500 Mich 453 (reasonableness review and Milbourn proportionality principle)
- People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630 (principle of proportionality for sentencing)
- People v Schrauben, 314 Mich App 181 (Lockridge did not alter MCL 769.34(10))
- People v Johnson, 499 Mich 851 (Mich. Supreme Court remand directing Crosby/Lockridge procedure)
- People v Francisco, 474 Mich 82 (statutory interpretation of sentencing guidelines reviewed de novo)
- People v Howell, 300 Mich App 638 (trial court may correct clerical sentencing errors)
- People v Clark, 315 Mich App 219 (preservation requirement for sentencing challenges)
- People v Jones, 394 Mich 434 (appeal after remand limited to remand issues)