People of Michigan v. Dwayne Edmund Wilson
154039
| Mich. | Jul 25, 2017Background
- Dwayne Wilson was convicted of felony-firearm and two counts of unlawful imprisonment; he had two prior felony-firearm convictions that arose from a single incident.
- At sentencing the trial court treated Wilson as a third felony-firearm offender and imposed a 10-year mandatory term under MCL 750.227b(1); Wilson objected, citing People v Stewart.
- Stewart (441 Mich 89) had held that prior felony-firearm convictions count only if they arise from separate criminal incidents.
- The trial court concluded Stewart was undermined by People v Gardner and the statutory text, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding lower courts remain bound by Stewart.
- The prosecution appealed; the Michigan Supreme Court granted review and considered whether Stewart should be overruled and whether prior felony-firearm convictions arising from the same incident count toward enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior felony-firearm convictions must arise from separate incidents to count under MCL 750.227b(1) | The State: statutory text requires counting prior convictions regardless of same-incident status; Stewart is wrong | Wilson: Stewart requires separate incidents, so his two prior convictions (from one incident) shouldn’t both count | The Court held prior felony-firearm convictions count even if from the same incident; Stewart overruled |
| Whether Stewart should remain controlling under stare decisis | The State: Stewart rests on Preuss/Stoudemire, which Gardner overruled; reliance interests are weakened | Wilson: reliance on Stewart supports retaining it to avoid hardship | The Court held stare decisis factors favor overruling Stewart given intervening caselaw and weak reliance interests |
| Whether the felony-firearm statute is ambiguous due to absence of "any combination of" language | The State: absence of that phrase does not create ambiguity; statute plainly counts convictions | Wilson: absence of express phrase (found in habitual-offender statutes) leaves room for a separate-incidents limitation | The Court held the statute unambiguous and requires counting convictions; no separate-incidents test applies |
| Remedy: remand under Lockridge for sentencing procedure | The State did not challenge Court of Appeals’ Lockridge remand | Wilson sought reduction consistent with Stewart | The Court affirmed remand to determine whether Lockridge error would have produced a materially different sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Stewart, 441 Mich 89 (Michigan Supreme Court 1992) (held prior felony-firearm convictions must arise from separate incidents; overruled)
- People v Gardner, 482 Mich 41 (Michigan Supreme Court 2008) (interpreted habitual-offender statutes and rejected separate-incidents test in that context)
- People v Preuss, 436 Mich 714 (Michigan Supreme Court 1990) (earlier decision applying separate-incidents rule; later overruled)
- People v Stoudemire, 429 Mich 262 (Michigan Supreme Court 1987) (applied separate-incidents rule in habitual-offender context; later overruled)
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (Michigan Supreme Court 2015) (required remand when sentencing guidelines advisory framework error might have affected sentence)