People of Michigan v. Lakeisha Nicole Gunn
333317
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- Defendant Lakeisha Gunn was convicted by jury of second-degree arson (MCL 750.73(1), Count I) and placing an offensive/injurious substance in/near real property with intent to damage (MCL 750.209(1)(b), Count II).
- At initial sentencing the judgment and PSIR mistakenly listed Count II as placing explosives (MCL 750.207(2)(b)); the court sentenced Gunn as a third habitual offender to 15–30 years on each count, concurrent.
- This Court affirmed convictions but vacated the Count II sentence and remanded for resentencing on the correct Count II offense because the trial court had proceeded under the mistaken offense citation.
- The Michigan Supreme Court remanded for a Crosby/Lockridge hearing on Count I to determine whether the trial court would have imposed a materially different sentence under advisory guidelines; the trial court concluded it would not and resentenced Count II correctly to 10–30 years.
- Gunn moved for resentencing as to Count I; the trial court denied the motion, concluding it lacked authority to modify a valid sentence. Gunn appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Gunn) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had authority to modify the Count I sentence after resentencing Count II | Sentence on Count I was valid; court lacked authority to modify a valid sentence under MCR 6.429(A) | Trial court could revisit Count I because related sentencing errors and proceeding under an unconstitutional constraint warranted reconsideration | Court held Count I sentence was valid and could not be modified; affirmed denial of resentencing |
| Whether judicial fact-finding in guidelines scoring (Alleyne/Lockridge issue) invalidated Count I sentence | Court complied with Lockridge/Crosby by holding a hearing and found it would not have imposed a different sentence | Alleyne/Lockridge error rendered the sentence invalid and requires resentencing | Court accepted trial court’s Crosby finding that it would have imposed the same sentence; no resentencing required |
| Whether sentence on Count I was based on inaccurate information (PSIR/judgment error on Count II) | The incorrect citation did not affect the Count I sentence; trial court knew it was sentencing on the correct charge; guidelines ranges were same for both offenses | The inaccurate PSIR/judgment citation rendered the Count I sentence invalid under People v Miles and required resentencing | Court found Miles distinguishable; error did not directly impact Count I sentence and thus sentence remained valid |
| Whether the sentence was unreasonable/disproportionate given mitigating circumstances (abusive relationship) | No timely challenge raised earlier; sentence within appropriate guidelines range and affirmed absent scoring error or inaccurate info | Sentence was disproportionate and should be reduced because of abusive relationship and other mitigating facts | Court rejected these arguments; Gunn had not preserved them on prior appeal and sentence fell within guidelines, so affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015) (held sentencing guidelines are advisory and explained Crosby remand procedure)
- People v Miles, 454 Mich 90 (1997) (a sentence is invalid if based on inaccurate information; trial court must resentencing when reliance on new/inaccurate PSIR data affects sentence)
- People v Herron, 303 Mich App 392 (2013) (addressed judicial fact-finding in guidelines scoring; followed by this Court under MCR 7.215(J)(1))
- United States v Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005) (procedure for determining whether a sentence would have been different absent mandatory guidelines)
- Alleyne v United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (held any fact that increases mandatory minimum is an element and must be submitted to jury)