People of Michigan v. Frederick Harvey Grumbley
328195
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 11, 2017Background
- Defendant Grumbley was convicted in 2004 of extortion and child sexually abusive activity (among other offenses); some convictions (child pornography, felon-in-possession, and felony-firearm) were later vacated after federal habeas relief and Sixth Circuit rulings.
- Following the vacatur, the state trial court resentenced Grumbley in June 2015 on the remaining convictions as a fourth-offense habitual offender to concurrent terms of 24 to 50 years (288 months to 50 years with credit for time served).
- Grumbley appealed the resentencing, arguing multiple sentencing-score and constitutional errors, and also filed pro se supplemental claims raising transcript errors, alleged perjury, and issues about victims named in the information.
- The trial court scored several offense variables (OV 4, OV 9, OV 13) and prior record variables (PRV 2, PRV 7), and confirmed habitual-offender status; Grumbley challenged those scores and the use of judicial fact-finding under the Sixth Amendment.
- The Court of Appeals found most scoring and habitual-offender challenges without merit on the record, but agreed that Lockridge requires treating Michigan’s guidelines as advisory and that Grumbley is entitled to a Crosby remand to determine whether Lockridge affected his sentence.
- The court declined to consider many pro se claims (transcript omissions, perjury, victim-naming defects) as outside the limited scope of an appeal from resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| OV scoring (OV 2, 4, 9, 13) | Scores supported by record and trial court findings | Several OVs improperly scored (lack of evidence; vacated convictions) | OV 2 correctly scored 0; OV 4, OV 9, OV 13 scores upheld on preponderance review |
| PRV scoring (PRV 2, PRV 7) | PRVs properly assessed from prior convictions and concurrent convictions | PRV 2 invalid due to alleged unconstitutional out-of-state conviction; PRV 7 incorrectly scored | PRV 7 and PRV 2 scores sustained; defendant failed to show basis to rescore |
| Habitual-offender status | Prior convictions properly counted, including same-transaction analysis under Gardner | Improper enhancement as a fourth-offense habitual offender due to same-transaction rules | Habitual-offender status upheld; defendant failed to prove miscounting |
| Judicial fact-finding / Lockridge error | Sentencing relied on judge-found facts but Lockridge makes guidelines advisory; Crosby remand required | Defendant asserts Sixth Amendment violation under Lockridge | Court concedes Lockridge error and orders Crosby remand for the trial court to determine whether it would have imposed a materially different sentence under advisory guidelines |
Key Cases Cited
- Lockridge v. Michigan, 498 Mich. 358 (advisory guidelines cure Sixth Amendment error caused by judge-found facts)
- United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir.) (procedure for remand to determine effect of advisory-sentence framework)
- People v. Stokes, 312 Mich. App. 181 (analysis of Lockridge errors and harmless-error/Crosby remand procedure)
- People v. Francisco, 474 Mich. 82 (counting offenses for OV/recidivism and guideline range implications)
- People v. Gardner, 482 Mich. 41 (same-transaction rule for counting prior convictions)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (Sixth Amendment and judicial fact-finding principles)