People of Michigan v. Joel Irwing Wilson
332124
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 25, 2017Background
- Defendant Joel Irving Wilson ran Diversified Group Management and American Realty Funds; from 2009–2012 roughly 125 investors invested about $7M, losing ~$6.4M. Prosecutor alleged funds were misused for personal benefit.
- Charges in this Saginaw case involved selling limited‑partnership securities to investor Vicki Tedrow and larceny by conversion for purchasing a vehicle for defendant’s wife with investor funds.
- Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of securities fraud (MCL 451.2501), selling an unregistered security (MCL 451.2508), and larceny by conversion (MCL 750.362); the trial court imposed upward‑departure sentences (80–120 months for securities counts, 30–60 months for larceny), concurrent.
- On appeal defendant challenged sentencing‑guideline scoring of OVs 9, 10, and 14, the reasonableness (proportionality) of the departure, alleged violation of the extradition treaty’s Rule of Specialty, and claimed the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence.
- The Court affirmed convictions and the departure sentence as reasonable under proportionality principles but remanded solely to correct guideline scoring errors for OVs 9, 10, and 14.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Wilson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scoring OV 9 (number of victims) | Court can consider broader scheme and multiple victims to score 25 points | Only Tedrow was implicated in the sentencing offense; OV 9 should be 0 | OV 9 improperly scored from broader scheme; must be 0 (victim count limited to sentencing offense) |
| Scoring OV 10 (vulnerable victim) | Victim was susceptible to defendant’s persuasion/expertise; 10 points justified | Tedrow was not a legally vulnerable person; OV 10 should be 0 | OV 10 improperly scored; insufficient evidence of vulnerability; score 0 |
| Scoring OV 14 (leadership in multiple‑offender situation) | Defendant led a larger enterprise warranting 10 points | For the single offense (sale to Tedrow) no multiple‑offender leadership; OV 14 should be 0 | OV 14 improperly scored; limited to the Tedrow transaction and should be 0 |
| Sentence proportionality / upward departure | Departure warranted because guidelines understate harm to victim and culpability | Departure unreasonable; guidelines adequate and business operation mitigates | Departure sentence affirmed as reasonable and proportionate given severity and impact; guidelines did not adequately account for injury |
| Rule of Specialty (extradition Article 22) | Venue change and amending complaining witnesses did not add new offenses or victims | Extradition authorized prosecution only in Bay County and against specific victims; change violated specialty | No treaty violation: charges were the same in substance; venue change within state and complainant amendments did not contravene specialty |
| Great‑weight challenge to convictions | Trial court found witnesses credible; evidence supported convictions | Convictions were against great weight; witnesses and proof conflicted | No miscarriage of justice; bench findings not clearly erroneous; credibility and weight for trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015) (guidelines review context post-Lockridge)
- People v. McGraw, 484 Mich 120 (2009) (offense variables scored based on sentencing offense alone)
- People v. Steanhouse, 313 Mich App 1 (2015) (standards for guideline departures and review)
- People v. Milbourn, 435 Mich 630 (1990) (principle of proportionality in sentencing)
- People v. Cannon, 481 Mich 152 (2008) (definition and factors for OV 10 vulnerability)
- People v. Dempster, 396 Mich 700 (1976) (burden to inject exemptions in securities prosecutions)