People of Michigan v. Jamar Deshawn Alexander
333896
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 28, 2017Background
- Defendant Jamar Deshawn Alexander was convicted by a jury of two armed robberies, two felony-firearm counts, and one count of larceny from a motor vehicle arising from two pizza-delivery robberies on the same day; offenses from two files were consolidated for trial.
- Police recovered defendant’s cell phone, a victim’s iPhone, a BB pistol, and pizza boxes linking the deliveries to defendant’s phone; defendant gave a recorded confession but later testified it was false.
- At sentencing the trial court scored offense variable (OV) 13 at 25 points (treating the offenses as a pattern of three or more crimes against a person), contributing to an OV total that placed defendant in a higher guidelines cell.
- Defendant did not object at sentencing to OV 13 scoring or to judicial fact-finding on OVs 10 and 12; he later appealed asserting ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing and Lockridge-based error.
- The Court of Appeals concluded defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the OV 13 score because a correct score would be 10 (combination of crimes against person and property), which altered the guidelines cell; the court vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to 25 points for OV 13 | 25 points was properly scored for a pattern of 3+ crimes against a person | Counsel’s failure to object was deficient and prejudiced defendant because OV 13 should not be 25 | Court: Counsel was deficient; prejudice shown; resentencing required (OV 13 should be 10) |
| Proper scoring level for OV 13 | OV 13 supports 25 points because of a continuing pattern of crimes against persons | OV 13 should be scored 10 points (2 crimes against person + 1 property offense) | Court: OV 13 should be 10 points under MCL 777.43(1)(d) rather than 25 |
| Whether judicial fact-finding to score OVs 10 and 12 violated Lockridge | Trial court properly scored OVs using judicially found facts; guidelines are advisory post-Lockridge | Judicial fact-finding violated Sixth Amendment and requires relief | Court: No relief — sentencing occurred after Lockridge; guidelines are advisory and judicial fact-finding alone does not require resentencing |
| Whether sentencing error affected defendant’s guidelines placement and warrants resentencing | No reversible error; scoring and outcome proper | OV 13 scoring changed OV total and guidelines cell, so resentencing required | Court: Sentences vacated and remanded for resentencing due to OV 13 error |
Key Cases Cited
- Heft v. State, 299 Mich. App. 69 (defendant must show counsel performance below objective standard and prejudice)
- Nix v. Michigan, 301 Mich. App. 195 (prejudice requires showing different result likely but for counsel’s error)
- Bonilla-Machado v. Michigan, 489 Mich. 412 (felony-firearm is not a crime against a person for OV scoring)
- Lockridge v. Michigan, 498 Mich. 358 (Michigan guidelines advisory post-Sixth Amendment; judicial fact-finding permitted but cannot mandatorily constrain minimum)
- Francisco v. Michigan, 474 Mich. 82 (defendant entitled to sentencing on accurate information)