People of Michigan v. Deandrew Deonta Jones
333929
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 28, 2017Background
- Defendant Deandrew Deonta Jones was convicted by a jury of multiple crimes including felon in possession, assault with a dangerous weapon, domestic violence, assault by strangulation, aggravated stalking, and two counts of felony-firearm.
- The trial court sentenced Jones as a fourth habitual offender to lengthy prison terms for several convictions and two years for each felony-firearm count.
- This Court affirmed the convictions but remanded for a Crosby hearing under People v Lockridge to address the sentencing procedure.
- On remand, the trial court gave Jones an opportunity to avoid resentencing; Jones did not respond, and defense counsel asked for resentencing but did not articulate reasons.
- The trial court reviewed the record and filings, considered only circumstances existing at the original sentencing, and issued a written order stating it would have imposed the same sentence absent the unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, therefore declining to resentence.
- Jones appealed the decision not to resentence; the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the trial court complied with Lockridge/Crosby requirements and provided an appropriate explanation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court comply with Lockridge/Crosby on remand and provide sufficient explanation for not resentencing? | The people (state) argued the trial court followed Lockridge/Crosby procedures and provided an appropriate explanation based on the original-sentencing circumstances. | Jones argued the trial court failed to articulate adequate reasons showing it would have imposed the same sentence, requiring a remand for resentencing. | The court held the trial court complied with Lockridge/Crosby, considered only original sentencing circumstances, and gave an appropriate explanation; no remand required. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (Mich. 2015) (establishing Crosby-remand procedure when sentencing guidelines constraint is unconstitutional)
- United States v Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005) (procedural framework referenced for Crosby remands)
- People v Armstrong, 490 Mich 281 (Mich. 2011) (standard of review for legal questions such as entitlement to remand)