People of Michigan v. Martell Washington
332077
| Mich. Ct. App. | Aug 8, 2017Background
- Defendant Martell Washington was convicted by a jury of armed robbery, assault with intent to do great bodily harm, assault by strangulation, using a computer to commit a crime, unauthorized use of a financial transaction device, felon in possession of a firearm, and felony-firearm; sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to long concurrent terms plus a consecutive 5-year felony-firearm term.
- Crimes occurred July 3, 2015; prosecution’s case relied largely on victim testimony that defendant threatened him with “a silver gun” and affirmed it was a handgun.
- Defendant challenged sufficiency of evidence for felon-in-possession and felony-firearm convictions, arguing the prosecution failed to prove he possessed a firearm.
- Defendant also argued his using-a-computer-to-commit-a-crime sentence exceeded the statutory maximum under MCL 752.797(3)(d).
- Finally, defendant challenged scoring of Offense Variables OV 1, OV 2, and OV 10 in the sentencing guidelines, asserting erroneous scoring and seeking resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for felon-in-possession and felony-firearm | Victim’s testimony that defendant threatened him with a silver handgun sufficed to prove possession of a firearm | No evidence supported a reasonable inference defendant possessed a firearm; prosecution failed to disprove non-firearm device | Court: Victim’s testimony, viewed favorably, was legally sufficient to support convictions (possession proven) |
| Proper statutory definition of “firearm” | Current statute (effective July 1, 2015) applies and covers the described weapon | Relied on prior statutory language to argue BB/pellet-gun exclusion; prosecution failed to disprove such device | Court: New statutory definition applies to crimes on July 3, 2015; defendant’s argument fails |
| Sentencing maximum for using-a-computer-to-commit-a-crime | Sentence may reflect predicate offense’s maximum and habitual-offender enhancements apply | Sentence exceeded MCL 752.797(3)(d) maximum (argued 7 years) | Court: Habitual-offender status (fourth-offense) permits up to life under MCL 769.12; sentence valid |
| Scoring of OVs 1, 2, and 10 | Trial court correctly scored OVs based on victim’s firearm testimony and predatory conduct | OV1/OV2 improperly scored because no shots fired; OV10 should be lower as crime was opportunistic | Court: OV1 and OV2 properly scored (pointing/possession need not involve firing); even if OV10 reduced, total OV score still places defendant in same OV Level III, so no resentencing required |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Bailey, 310 Mich. App. 703 (sufficiency-of-evidence review described)
- People v Reese, 491 Mich. 127 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- People v Brantley, 296 Mich. App. 546 (circumstantial evidence and inferences may suffice)
- People v Nowack, 462 Mich. 392 (draw reasonable inferences and credibility determinations in support of jury verdict)
- People v Peals, 476 Mich. 636 (discussion of statutory firearm definitions under prior law)
- People v Allen, 499 Mich. 307 (habitual-offender enhancements and legislative intent)
- People v Hardy, 494 Mich. 430 (standard for reviewing sentencing guideline factual findings)
- People v Fransisco, 474 Mich. 82 (no resentencing when scoring error does not change minimum range)
- People v Biddles, 316 Mich. App. 148 (same principle regarding harmless OV scoring errors)