People of Michigan v. Enrique Alonso Olvera
332044
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 15, 2017Background
- Undercover informant Roberto Medina, working with MET detectives, conducted controlled buys from Enrique Olvera on Nov 19, Nov 25, and Dec 4, 2014; police provided "buy money," observed deliveries, and recovered cocaine from the buys.
- Police surveillance on Dec 4 observed Olvera meet Christopher O’Brien, who testified he supplied drugs to Olvera; hours later Olvera told Medina by phone, “I’ve got the stuff,” then completed the Dec 4 sale to Medina.
- Olvera was charged for delivery of 50–450 grams of a controlled substance based on the Dec 4 transaction; separate charges arose from Nov 25 and Dec 21 transactions (not part of this appeal).
- Prosecutor sought to admit the Nov 19 and Nov 25 buys and the Dec 21 O’Brien incident as MRE 404(b) other-acts evidence to show common plan and to rebut a defense of fabrication; the trial court admitted the evidence and gave a limiting instruction.
- Jury convicted Olvera for the Dec 4 delivery; trial court sentenced him to 20–40 years and ordered $6,250 restitution (total of buy money from Nov 19, Nov 25, and Dec 4).
- On appeal, the court affirmed the conviction, rejected ineffective-assistance claims, but vacated and remanded the restitution award because it included losses from transactions for which Olvera was not convicted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of other-acts evidence (MRE 404(b)) | Other-acts (Nov 19, Nov 25, Dec 21) show common scheme and rebut fabrication defense | Evidence was propensity evidence and unduly prejudicial | Admitted: evidence relevant to common plan and to rebut fabrication; limiting instruction sufficed to mitigate prejudice |
| Sufficiency of other-acts similarity | Prior buys and O’Brien deliveries were sufficiently similar to Dec 4 to support inference of common system | Dissimilarities undermine common-plan inference | Held similar enough; Dec 21 showed supply link from O’Brien and made Dec 4 delivery more probable |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to impeach informant | (Prosecution) Counsel reasonably litigated credibility; cross-examination exposed criminal history and motive | (Defendant) Counsel should have further impeached Medina with Michigan record and prior inconsistent statements | Denied: counsel’s performance was within reasonable strategic choices and defendant did not show prejudice |
| Restitution amount ($6,250) | MET entitled to restitution for buy money lost in the defendant’s course of conduct | Defendant argued restitution improperly included buy money from transactions not resulting in conviction | Reversed as to restitution: awarding buy money for Nov 19 and Nov 25 (transactions not part of the conviction) exceeded restitution statute; remanded to recalculate restitution limited to the offense of conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. VanderVliet, 444 Mich. 52 (framework for admitting other-acts evidence under MRE 404(b))
- People v. Knox, 469 Mich. 502 (application of VanderVliet factors)
- People v. Starr, 457 Mich. 490 (other-acts admissible to rebut fabrication claims)
- People v. Sabin (After Remand), 463 Mich. 43 (similar misconduct probative of common plan)
- People v. Crawford, 458 Mich. 376 (relevance standards for evidence)
- People v. Armstrong, 490 Mich. 281 (ineffective assistance two-prong test)
- People v. Crigler, 244 Mich. App. 420 (restitution under MCL 780.766 for narcotics enforcement buy money)
- People v. Newton, 257 Mich. App. 61 (limits on restitution for general investigative costs)
- People v. McKinley, 496 Mich. 410 (restitution limited to conduct forming the course of conduct that gave rise to the conviction)