People of Michigan v. Michael Anthony Wellman
320 Mich. App. 603
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Jan 23, 2015, the victim and defendant (longtime friends) encountered each other after the victim retrieved laundry from defendant’s apartment; defendant then assaulted her, threatened to rape and kill her, and the victim escaped and called 911.
- The victim suffered multiple facial lacerations, was described as hysterical by police, and testified at trial that the attack was "traumatic," left her "scared for [her] life," caused continuing memory loss and digestive issues, and that she was on disability for anxiety and PTSD.
- Defendant was convicted by jury of assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520g(1).
- Defendant was sentenced as a fourth habitual offender to 5–25 years’ imprisonment; the trial court scored Offense Variable 4 (OV 4) at 10 points for serious psychological injury requiring professional treatment.
- Defendant appealed solely challenging the OV 4 scoring as inaccurate and a violation of due process; he argued the record did not show a serious psychological injury requiring professional treatment and emphasized lack of a victim impact statement or explicit victim testimony causally linking injuries to him.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the trial court’s scoring of OV 4 at 10 points was supported by the record and consistent with statutory text and precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OV 4 was properly scored at 10 points for "serious psychological injury requiring professional treatment" | The prosecution/appellee: the victim’s trial testimony, demeanor, medical/behavioral effects (PTSD, anxiety, digestive issues, memory loss), and courtroom behavior show serious psychological injury that may require professional treatment; sentencing courts may consider trial testimony and PSI materials. | Wellman: record does not prove a serious psychological injury requiring professional treatment; victim did not submit an impact statement or explicitly testify that defendant caused psychological injuries, so 10 points is unsupported and violates due process. | Affirmed. OV 4 properly scored at 10 points; trial court’s factual determinations not clearly erroneous and scoring follows statute. |
| Whether OV 4 must be read differently than OV 5 (and whether absence of current treatment bars points) | Appellee: OV 4 should be interpreted consistently with OV 5 as explained by the Michigan Supreme Court (Calloway): "serious" means having important or dangerous consequences and need not reflect present treatment or intent to seek treatment; statements reflecting trauma suffice. | Wellman: (implicit) adopting a stricter standard would prevent points absent evidence of treatment or an explicit intent to seek treatment. | Affirmed. Court extended Calloway’s reasoning for OV 5 to OV 4: identical statutory language should receive same meaning; present treatment is not required to score points. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Hardy, 494 Mich 430 (rule on standard of review for guideline scoring) (guidelines factual findings reviewed for clear error; statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- People v Bonilla-Machado, 489 Mich 412 (read sentencing guideline statutes as a whole when scoring OVs)
- Turner v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 448 Mich 22 (cardinal rule of statutory construction: effectuating legislative intent via plain language)
- Mull v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc'y, 444 Mich 508 (statutory interpretation principles)
- Lamphere Schools v. Lamphere Fed'n of Teachers, 400 Mich 104 (focus on plain statutory language)
- Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (interpretation of words in statutory context)
- Malpass v. Dep’t of Treasury, 494 Mich 237 (enforce unambiguous statutory language as written)
- Sun Valley Foods Co. v. Ward, 460 Mich 120 (statutory construction principles)
- People v Ratklov, 201 Mich App 123 (sentencing court may consider trial testimony and PSI when calculating guidelines)
- People v Williams, 298 Mich App 121 (victim statements of feeling frightened and violated can support 10 points for OV 4)
- People v Portellos, 298 Mich App 431 (overruled in part by Calloway regarding necessity of proof of treatment)
- Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1718 (identical words in different parts of a statute carry same meaning)