People of Michigan v. Jermaine Terrell Jackson
333722
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- Defendant Jermaine Jackson attended a Bedford Township party, became intoxicated, retrieved a gun, and shot Demetrius Davis twice; Davis required hospitalization, surgery, and has not regained full use of his injured arm.
- A jury acquitted Jackson of assault with intent to murder but convicted him of the lesser included offense, assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder (MCL 750.84).
- Sentencing guidelines produced a recommended minimum range of 34–67 months; the trial court imposed an upward departure to 72–120 months.
- The trial court justified departure largely by emphasizing the seriousness of the offense, that Jackson brought a gun to the party, and an alleged intent to use it despite arguments he carried it for protection.
- The Court of Appeals concluded the trial court’s reasons were already accounted for in the guidelines (through offense variables) and that the court failed to explain why the guidelines inadequately reflected the offense/ offender; therefore the upward departure lacked adequate support.
- The appellate court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing; it noted an unchallenged possible error in OV 4 scoring and that PRV 2 had been improperly scored (no prior adult record) which may be corrected on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court permissibly imposed an upward departure from the guidelines | The upward departure was justified because the offense was particularly serious: defendant brought a gun to a party and intended to use it | The guidelines already account for the seriousness and weapon use; the court failed to identify factors not reflected in the guidelines or show inadequate weight was given to scored variables | The court vacated the upward departure: the reasons relied on were already encapsulated by the guidelines and the trial court failed to explain why the guidelines were inadequate |
| Whether the trial court adequately explained proportionality and connected reasons to extent of the departure | The court’s sentencing rationale and observation of trial supported a longer sentence | Departure explanation was insufficiently specific and did not reference guideline variables or justify increased weight | The appellate court held explanation was inadequate for effective appellate review and remanded for resentencing |
| Whether use/possession of a firearm at the party supported departure beyond OV scoring | Prosecutor argued bringing and using the gun warranted more severe punishment than the guidelines minimum | Defense argued firearm use and resulting harm were reflected in offense variables (OVs 1,2,3,4,9) and guideline grid | The court found the firearm use was accounted for in OVs and the grid; trial court gave no basis for treating those factors as inadequately weighted |
| Whether court may rely on facts incompatible with jury verdict (e.g., intent to kill) to score OVs or justify departure | Prosecution suggested original charge (intent to murder) supported departure rationale | Defense pointed out jury acquittal on intent-to-kill charge and statutory limits on scoring OV 6 absent additional evidence | The court noted OV 6 could not be scored given verdict and record; no evidence trial court had information beyond jury record to justify scoring or departure on that basis |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358 (2015) (holds statutory guidelines advisory; review for reasonableness/abuse of discretion)
- People v Steanhouse, 500 Mich. 453 (2017) (adopts abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing departure sentences and applies Milbourn proportionality principle)
- People v Milbourn, 435 Mich. 630 (1990) (principle of proportionality: courts must ensure sentences are proportionate to offense and offender; departures require reasons not reflected in guidelines)
- People v Smith, 482 Mich. 292 (2008) (trial courts must articulate connection between departure reasons and extent of departure to allow effective appellate review)
- People v Babcock, 469 Mich. 247 (2003) (a sentencing court must articulate reasons for departure; appellate courts cannot infer unstated justifications)