People of Michigan v. Galien Alexander Glenn
327926
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 22, 2016Background
- Defendant Galien Alexander Glenn was convicted by a jury of two counts of assault with intent to rob while armed, one count of carrying a dangerous weapon with unlawful intent, and two counts of felonious assault; sentences run concurrently and appeal followed.
- The principal contested evidence was two victims’ out‑of‑court identifications: an on‑the‑scene show‑up the night of the assault (Cunningham) and a corporeal lineup months later (Cooper).
- Police encountered occupants at a residence ~45 minutes after the incident; officers conducted a prompt show‑up on the porch with multiple individuals presented sequentially using porch/flashlight illumination. Cunningham identified defendant that night and again in court.
- Cooper later identified defendant in a lineup three months after the incident; defense attacked her certainty and timing of report but did not challenge the lineup procedure at trial.
- At sentencing the trial court assessed 25 points for OV 13 (continuing pattern of criminal behavior) based on multiple crimes against persons arising from the same incident; defendant challenged scoring as gang‑related and under Lockridge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pretrial on‑scene identification (due process) | Show‑up was prompt and proper; identification admissible | On‑scene show‑up was impermissibly suggestive and violated due process | No plain error; show‑up not impermissibly suggestive given totality (opportunity, attention, description, certainty, short delay, no police suggestion) |
| Cooper's lineup identification admissibility | Lineup properly admitted; credibility for jury | Cooper uncertain and delayed reporting; identification unreliable | Admissible; challenge goes to weight/credibility for jury, not admissibility; no suggestiveness claim made at trial |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to suppress ID evidence | N/A (People defend adequacy of counsel) | Counsel was ineffective for not objecting to ID evidence | Denied: trial counsel not ineffective because objections would have been futile—the procedures were not impermissibly suggestive |
| OV 13 scoring and Lockridge challenge | OV13 correctly scored (25 pts) under MCL 777.43(1)(c) based on 3+ crimes against persons; jury found requisite facts | OV13 improperly based on gang‑related facts / violated Lockridge because judge found facts beyond jury | Affirmed: OV13 score based on jury‑found convictions for multiple crimes against persons; no Lockridge error or prejudice; no ineffective assistance for failing to object |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Davis, 241 Mich. App. 697 (identification admissibility standard; credibility for jury)
- People v Hornsby, 251 Mich. App. 462 (standard for reviewing identification admissibility)
- People v Kurylczyk, 443 Mich. 289 (factors for evaluating suggestive identification; independent basis for in‑court ID)
- People v Libbett, 251 Mich. App. 353 (permissibility of prompt on‑scene identifications)
- People v Gray, 457 Mich. 107 (single‑photo show‑up found highly suggestive)
- People v Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain‑error standard for unpreserved constitutional claims)
- People v Hickman, 470 Mich. 602 (de novo review for constitutional issues)
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358 (Sixth Amendment and sentencing‑guidelines factfinding)
- People v Francisco, 474 Mich. 82 (counting crimes for OV 13 within five‑year period)
- People v Gibbs, 299 Mich. App. 473 (multiple concurrent offenses may be used to score OV 13)
- People v Kimble, 470 Mich. 305 (preservation rules for sentencing claims)
- People v Musser, 259 Mich. App. 215 (record‑limited review of ineffective assistance claims)
- People v Thomas, 260 Mich. App. 450 (counsel not ineffective for failing to make a futile objection)
- People v McGraw, 484 Mich. 120 (definition of sentencing offense)