People of Michigan v. Matthew Morris Baker
327356
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 13, 2016Background
- Victim Ross Farr let Rebecca Stone live in his home; Stone and her boyfriend Matthew Baker were implicated in thefts of Farr’s money orders and savings bonds.
- On March 6, 2014, Baker forced Farr at gunpoint (or by implying a gun) to drive to a bank and withdraw $6,000; Stone left afterward with a rented vehicle.
- On April 10, 2014, Baker again threatened Farr and forced him to withdraw $4,822; surveillance video showed Farr and Baker in a garage together for about 24 minutes.
- Police later found Farr’s savings bonds at locations where Baker had stayed; attempts had been made to cash them using a driver’s license number linked to Baker.
- A jury convicted Baker of extortion, unarmed robbery, unlawful imprisonment, larceny $1,000–$20,000, and larceny in a building; Baker challenged prosecutorial misconduct and his sentencing‑guidelines scoring and constitutionality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct on cross‑examination | Prosecutor’s questioning was proper impeachment and permissible forceful advocacy | Prosecutor used sarcastic, argumentative, and improper questions that impaired a fair trial | Although some questioning was improper or unprofessional, curative rulings and instructions by the trial court prevented prejudice; no new trial required |
| OV scoring—OV 1 (weapon implied) | Evidence supported scoring: Baker implied a gun during both incidents | Baker argued jury acquitted of being armed; scoring required higher standard | Preponderance standard met; 5 points for OV 1 upheld |
| OV scoring—OVs 8,10,14,19 (asportation, vulnerable victim, leader, interference) | Preponderance of evidence supported scores based on threats, control of victim, leadership, and delayed reporting | Baker contested evidentiary support and reliance on facts beyond jury findings | Trial court’s factual findings were supported by a preponderance of evidence; OV scores upheld |
| Sentencing constitutionality under Lockridge | State argued judicial factfinding may inform advisory guidelines; Crosby procedure governs remand choice | Baker argued guidelines findings based on judicial factfinding raise constitutional issues after Lockridge | Lockridge requires advisory guidelines; remand ordered to allow Baker choice whether to seek resentencing under Crosby/Lockridge procedure |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358 (Michigan Supreme Court) (holding Michigan’s sentencing guidelines advisory; requiring Crosby procedure on remand)
- People v. Hardy, 494 Mich. 430 (Michigan Supreme Court) (standard of review for guideline OV factual findings: preponderance/clear error)
- People v. Bahoda, 448 Mich. 261 (Michigan Supreme Court) (attorneys’ arguments generally cured by jury instruction that arguments are not evidence)
- United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir.) (procedure permitting defendant choice to seek resentencing after guideline invalidation)
- People v. Francisco, 474 Mich. 82 (Michigan Supreme Court) (sentencing error that alters minimum range entitles defendant to resentencing)