People of Michigan v. Demetrise Cortez Rainge
330127
| Mich. Ct. App. | Sep 14, 2017Background
- Defendant Demetrise Rainge shot two people, killing Lamarco Lewis and injuring another; he discarded the firearm after the shootings and was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder, assault with intent to do great bodily harm, and felony-firearm.
- At original sentencing the court imposed 30–60 years (murder), 6.5–10 years (assault), and 2 years (felony-firearm); this Court remanded and the trial court granted resentencing.
- On remand the trial court resentenced defendant to the same terms; defendant challenged several scoring and sentencing matters on appeal and in a Standard 4 brief.
- Defendant challenged the scoring of Offense Variable (OV) 5 (now moot after resentencing), OV 6 (intent), and OV 19 (interference with administration of justice), and also raised multiple ineffective-assistance-of-counsel (IAC) claims (failure to request lesser-included or cognate instructions, failure to investigate/call a firearms expert, and failure to secure a plea).
- The trial court relied on the jury verdicts, record evidence, and parties’ acquiescence when scoring OVs; the court assessed 25 points for OV 6 and 10 points for OV 19.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| OV 5 resentencing relief | State took no position in opinion text; court granted resentencing on OV 5 deficiency | Rainge sought resentencing because OV 5 lacked record support | Moot — defendant received resentencing relief on OV 5, so Court declines further review |
| Judgment wording re: concurrent vs consecutive sentences (preservation) | Judgment language and clarifying text adequately inform DOC; issue forfeited without objection | Rainge argued ministerial correction required to show murder and assault concurrent and consecutive to felony‑firearm | Unpreserved; plain‑error review fails — judgment’s checked box plus clarifying language adequately conveyed how sentences run |
| OV 6 scoring (intent to kill or cause great bodily harm) | 25 points appropriate given jury’s guilty verdict for second‑degree murder and record evidence (use of deadly weapon, shot to the head) | Rainge claimed he fired without aiming and provocation/size of victims reduced culpability | Affirmed — court may infer malice/intent from use of deadly weapon and verdict; parties and defense counsel acquiesced at sentencing; preponderance supports 25 points |
| IAC claims (lesser instructions, firearms expert, plea negotiation) and OV 19 scoring | Court and prosecutor argue counsel’s strategy (defense‑of‑others), lack of record support for failures, and defendant lied to police supporting OV 19 | Rainge contends counsel failed to request voluntary manslaughter or reckless‑discharge instructions, did not investigate/call firearms expert, and failed to negotiate a plea; challenges OV 19 scoring on remand | Affirmed — IAC claims unpreserved and not shown on record to be deficient or prejudicial (strategy reasonable; hypothetical expert unsupported; plea offers rejected by defendant); OV 19 (10 points) proper based on defendant’s lies to police obstructing investigation |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Billings, 283 Mich. App. 538 (discussing mootness where requested relief granted) (mootness principle)
- BP 7 v. Bureau of State Lottery, 231 Mich. App. 356 (general rule against deciding moot issues) (mootness principle)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain‑error standard) (plain error affects substantial rights)
- People v. Goecke, 457 Mich. 442 (malice element of second‑degree murder) (malice defined as intent to kill, intent to cause great bodily harm, or wanton/willful disregard)
- People v. Mendoza, 468 Mich. 527 (lesser‑included offense instruction standard) (when manslaughter instruction required)
- People v. Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich. 38 (counsel’s duty to investigate) (reasonableness of investigation)
- People v. Smith, 488 Mich. 193 (OV 19 and post‑offense conduct) (OV 19 may include post‑offense interference with justice)