People of Michigan v. General Fletcher Jones
329185
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jan 17, 2017Background
- Defendant General Fletcher Jones was convicted after a bench trial of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder (AWIGBH), felonious assault, and felony-firearm arising from a December 13, 2014 shooting in a strip-mall parking lot in Inkster, Michigan.
- Victim Walter Whitner testified Jones entered Whitner’s work van, pulled a handgun, demanded property, and then fired; Whitner was shot in the foot and took cover; surveillance and shell casings corroborated portions of Whitner’s account.
- Jones did not testify; in a recorded interview he said he was selling “lean,” feared Whitner would shoot him, and therefore fired in self-defense, continuing to shoot as Whitner ran away.
- The trial court found Jones not guilty of armed robbery and not guilty of intent to commit murder, but guilty of AWIGBH (concluding self-defense ended when Jones continued firing as Whitner fled), felonious assault, and felony-firearm.
- On appeal Jones challenged (1) alleged inconsistency of convicting him of both AWIGBH and felonious assault, (2) double jeopardy, and (3) scoring of Offense Variable 4 (OV 4) for psychological injury in the sentencing guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convictions for AWIGBH and felonious assault are inconsistent | Convictions are consistent because the court properly found facts supporting both offenses | Jones argued felonious assault requires absence of intent to inflict great bodily harm, so convictions conflict | Court: No inconsistency; intent-to-inflict-great-bodily-harm is the absence of an element for felonious assault, not a bar to convicting both offenses; convictions stand |
| Whether convictions violate double jeopardy (multiple punishments) | Prosecution: different elements permit cumulative punishment under Blockburger and Michigan precedent | Jones argued legislative intent precludes punishing both offenses | Court: No double jeopardy violation; Michigan Supreme Court precedent permits convictions for both AWIGBH and felonious assault |
| Whether 10 points for OV 4 (serious psychological injury requiring professional treatment) were supported | Prosecution conceded remand may be appropriate; PSIR contained victim impact statement claiming psychological injury | Jones argued PSIR statements insufficient and contradicted trial testimony showing victim remained employed and never sought treatment | Court: 10-point assessment unsupported by preponderance of the evidence; OV 4 reduced, lowering OV level and sentencing range; remand for resentencing |
| Remedy for sentencing error | N/A | N/A | Court vacated sentences and remanded for resentencing; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Doss, 406 Mich 90 (establishes that phrasing like “without malice” may denote absence of an element rather than a separate element)
- People v Strawther, 480 Mich 900 (Michigan Supreme Court ruling that convictions for AWIGBH and felonious assault may both stand)
- People v Smith, 478 Mich 292 (same-elements Blockburger analysis for multiple punishments)
- People v Carines, 460 Mich 750 (plain-error standard for unpreserved appellate claims)
- People v Hardy, 494 Mich 430 (standards for reviewing sentencing variable factual findings)
- People v Francisco, 474 Mich 82 (resentencing required where guidelines scoring error altered guideline range)