People of Michigan v. Martwan Deaire Johnson
329134
Mich. Ct. App.Sep 14, 2017Background
- Defendant Martwan Johnson and co-defendant Justin Walker were tried jointly for an April 6, 2014 Flint home invasion and armed robbery; Christopher Williams and other household witnesses identified the perpetrators and testified that Johnson held a gun to Christopher’s head.
- Jury convicted Johnson of armed robbery, first-degree home invasion, felon in possession, felonious assault, and felony-firearm; he was sentenced as a third-offense habitual offender with some consecutive terms.
- Co-defendant Walker was acquitted; Walker presented a corroborated alibi, while Johnson’s alibi had inconsistencies and no corroborating witness.
- On appeal Johnson challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence for home invasion and firearm counts, (2) indicia of incarceration (leg restraints and a deputy’s presence while testifying), (3) ineffective assistance for failing to object to courtroom procedures, and (4) the trial court’s unexplained imposition of a consecutive sentence for home invasion.
- The Court of Appeals remanded for an evidentiary hearing about the deputy’s location; following that hearing the trial court found the deputy stood ~9–11 feet from Johnson, to his side, impassive and non-reactive.
- The appellate court affirmed the convictions, rejected prejudice and ineffective-assistance claims, but remanded for the trial court to articulate reasons for imposing the consecutive home-invasion sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for first-degree home invasion | Prosecution: eyewitness testimony showed entry “without permission” and intent or commission of felony in dwelling | Johnson: he followed a friend (Trell) through an open door and had implied permission; also challenges credibility | Affirmed—Christopher testified he did not permit Johnson to enter; jury could find entry without permission; sufficiency satisfied |
| Sufficiency for felon-in-possession and felony-firearm | Prosecution: eyewitness testimony placed a gun in Johnson’s hands during commission of offenses | Johnson: no evidence he possessed a firearm | Affirmed—eyewitness identified Johnson holding a gun to victim’s head; constructive/actual possession for jury to decide |
| Indicia of incarceration — leg restraints and jury removal to hide them | Prosecution: restraints were not visible to jurors; procedure prevented prejudice | Johnson: leg brace/Taser implied custody and guilt; removal of jury and being on stand with deputy created a “spotlight” | No relief—restraints not seen by jury; removing jury to prevent exposure waived at trial or harmless; no actual prejudice shown |
| Deputy’s location while testifying (appearance of being "guarded") | Prosecution: guard’s presence was neutral, >9 feet away, impassive; not inherently prejudicial | Johnson: deputy stood near him while not near co-defendant, suggesting dangerousness and biasing jury | No relief—court found deputy to side, 112–130 inches away, non-reactive; presence not inherently prejudicial and defendant failed to show actual prejudice |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to object to procedures | Prosecution: counsel’s decisions were reasonable (prevented jury seeing restraints); no prejudice | Johnson: counsel should have objected to restraints, jury removal, and deputy placement | No relief—strategy reasonable to avoid visible restraints; no reasonable probability of different outcome shown |
| Consecutive sentencing for home invasion | Prosecution: MCL statutory discretion permits consecutive term; trial court implicitly exercised discretion | Johnson: trial court failed to state reasons and may have thought consecutive term mandatory; abused discretion | Remand required—trial court must articulate particularized reasons for imposing consecutive home-invasion sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wilder, 485 Mich 35 (2010) (elements and alternative modes of first-degree home invasion)
- Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560 (1986) (case-by-case analysis for courtroom security measures and whether they are inherently prejudicial)
- Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976) (defendant’s appearance and courtroom procedures evaluated for effects on presumption of innocence)
- People v. Payne, 285 Mich App 181 (2009) (no prejudice when restraints are not visible to jury)
- People v. Norfleet, 317 Mich App 649 (2016) (when discretion exists to impose consecutive sentence, trial court should state reasons)