People of Michigan v. Matthew Leslie Lott
334193
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Police found methamphetamine production components, pseudoephedrine, suspected heroin, crack cocaine, finished methamphetamine, and prescription pills in Lott’s apartment after he consented to a search.
- Lott admitted buying pseudoephedrine for others, letting people use and sell drugs at his residence, and having tubing/funnels/filters used to make methamphetamine.
- Later the same day officers encountered Lott yelling and resisting; he struck officers while being escorted out and was charged with assaulting police (resisting arrest).
- Lott pleaded guilty under a deal: he pleaded to multiple drug counts and two assault counts as a fourth habitual offender; prosecution agreed to dismiss certain counts/cases and not pursue a subsequent-offense enhancement or a warrant for absconding.
- At sentencing Lott received lengthy prison terms as a fourth habitual offender. He moved to withdraw his plea arguing the plea was illusory (no benefit from prosecutor’s promise not to seek a controlled-substance subsequent-offense enhancement), OV 14 was improperly scored, and his joint-representation rights under MCR 6.005 were violated.
- The trial court denied withdrawal and the Court of Appeals affirmed on all grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plea illusory / involuntary | Plea was knowing/voluntary; prosecution made concessions (dismissals) | Plea was illusory because prosecutor’s promise not to seek subsequent-offense enhancement conferred no benefit where fourth-habitual enhancement could also double sentence | Court: Plea valid; defendant knew fourth-habitual could double sentence and still accepted plea; plea was not illusory because other concessions provided real benefit |
| OV 14 scoring (leader role) | OV 14 appropriately scored based on defendant’s admissions and conduct | Scoring relied on judicial fact-finding and was erroneous; defendant not a leader | Court: Lockridge allows judicial fact-finding; evidence supported finding that Lott was a leader; 10 points proper |
| Judicial fact-finding at sentencing | Sentencing findings permissible post-Lockridge | Judicial fact-finding violated defendant’s rights | Court: Lockridge made guidelines advisory; judicial fact-finding allowed; no error |
| Conflict of counsel / MCR 6.005 compliance | Separate counsel requirement satisfied in jointly charged case; no conflict shown | Counsel conflict because same attorney represented co-defendant in different case | Court: Rule complied with (separate, unassociated counsel in joint case); no ineffective-assistance showing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cole, 817 NW2d 497 (Michigan 2012) (guilty pleas must be voluntary and defendant must understand direct consequences)
- People v. Fetterley, 583 NW2d 199 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998) (controlled-substance enhancements and habitual-offender enhancements cannot both doubly enhance a sentence)
- People v. Lockridge, 870 NW2d 502 (Mich. 2015) (rendered sentencing guidelines advisory; post-Lockridge judicial fact-finding at sentencing permissible)
- People v. Ackah-Essien, 874 NW2d 172 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015) (definition and guidance on scoring OV 14 leader-role)
- People v. Kurylczyk, 505 NW2d 528 (Mich. 1993) (standard for clear-error review of sentencing findings)
- People v. Blanton, 894 NW2d 613 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016) (procedural rules governing plea acceptance)