People of Michigan v. Jonathon Ledale Purnell, 333288

Background

Defendant Jonathon Ledale Purnell, housed at Ingham County Jail awaiting disposition of an unrelated charge, assaulted fellow detainee Mark Carpenter on December 21, 2014; Carpenter suffered serious injuries including a detached retina.
A jury convicted Purnell of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder (AWIGBH), MCL 750.84; he was sentenced as a third-offense habitual offender to 10–20 years imprisonment.
At sentencing the trial court ordered the sentence to run consecutively to another sentence based on the prosecutor s assertion that consecutive sentencing was mandatory; later it was conceded Purnell was awaiting trial (not serving a sentence) when the assault occurred.
Purnell appealed, arguing (inter alia) erroneous denial of lesser-included-offense instructions, disproportionate/unreasonable sentencing, improper consecutive sentencing, preindictment delay violating due process, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, rejected the challenges to jury instructions, due-process delay, proportionality, and ineffective assistance, but held the sentencing court had misapplied the law regarding mandatory consecutive sentencing and remanded for the trial court to exercise discretion whether to impose consecutive sentences and to reconsider jail credit.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by refusing lesser-included offense instructions (assault/battery; aggravated assault)	Prosecutor: AWIGBH instructions were proper given the evidence of intent and serious injury	Purnell: Evidence supported conviction of lesser offenses; jury should have been instructed on assault/battery and aggravated assault	Court: Aggravated assault not necessarily included; simple assault/battery, though necessarily included, was not supported by more-than-modicum evidence. No error.
Whether denial of lesser-included instructions violated right to present a defense	Not applicable	Purnell: Exclusion prevented jury from considering his lack-of-intent defense	Court: Jury instructions did not prevent presentation of defense; no constitutional violation.
Whether sentence (10–20 years) was unreasonable/disproportionate	State: Sentence supported by offense seriousness, injuries, and defendant s conduct while detained	Purnell: Sentence departs from guidelines and is disproportionate given lack of prior violent history	Court: Sentence reasonable; court relied on factors not fully reflected in guidelines (egregiousness, in-custody commission, lack of remorse).
Whether consecutive sentencing was mandatory and thus sentence erroneous	Prosecutor (at sentencing): MCL 768.7a(1) required consecutive sentencing	Purnell: Consecutive mandatory only if defendant was serving a sentence; he was awaiting trial, so mandatory rule does not apply	Court: Prosecutor was wrong; MCL 750.506a gives trial court discretion to impose consecutive sentences for offenses committed while lawfully detained awaiting trial. Remand for exercise of discretion and jail-credit determination.

Key Cases Cited

People v. Mendoza, 468 Mich. 527 (Mich. 2003) (lesser-included instruction only for necessarily included offenses and when a rational view of the evidence supports it)
People v. Stevens, 306 Mich. App. 620 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (definition and intent element of AWIGBH)
People v. Meissner, 294 Mich. App. 438 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011) (definitions of assault and battery)
People v. Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358 (Mich. 2015) (review of sentences departing from guidelines and reasonableness standard)
People v. Milbourn, 435 Mich. 630 (Mich. 1990) (proportionality principle in sentencing)
People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (Mich. 1999) (plain-error standard for unpreserved claims)
People v. Douglas, 496 Mich. 557 (Mich. 2014) (effective assistance of counsel includes competent advice during plea bargaining)