People of Michigan v. Richard Allen Baham
321 Mich. App. 228
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In May 2015 police found Baham operating a mobile methamphetamine lab in his vehicle; he was charged with five offenses and face(d) fourth-habitual-offender notice.
- Baham accepted a plea deal: plead guilty to manufacturing methamphetamine (MCL 333.7401(2)(b)(i)), operating/maintaining a meth lab (MCL 333.7401c(2)(f)), and possession (MCL 333.7403(2)(b)(i)); two other charges were dismissed and habitual-offender status reduced to second-offense.
- At the plea hearing Baham admitted he had chemicals/components, that he made/cooked methamphetamine in his vehicle he controlled, and that he possessed methamphetamine he made; the court accepted the plea and sentenced concurrent terms.
- Baham filed delayed appeals; the Michigan Supreme Court remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted.
- On remand the Court of Appeals reviewed three principal challenges: (1) the “personal use” exception to the definition of manufacture; (2) a double jeopardy claim that manufacturing and possession convictions are the same offense; and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to raise those issues below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal-use exception to "manufacture" definition | State: defendant admitted making/cooking meth, supporting manufacture; personal-use exception applies only to preparation/compounding, not to creating meth | Baham: plea lacked factual basis because statute exempts preparation/compounding for personal use and court did not elicit intent to distribute | Held: personal-use exception inapplicable to making/cooking meth (which is production/conversion/processing); admissions provided sufficient factual basis; counsel not ineffective for failing to raise meritless claim |
| Double jeopardy — manufacturing vs possession | State: manufacturing and possession have distinct statutory elements; multiple punishments permissible | Baham: cannot be convicted of both because manufacturing necessarily involves possession of the same drug | Held: Not the same offense under the elements test; each crime contains an element the other lacks; convictions do not violate double jeopardy; counsel not ineffective for failing to raise meritless claim |
| Procedural forfeiture under MCR 6.310(D) | State: defendant failed to move to withdraw plea, so accuracy of plea generally barred on appeal | Baham: preserved claim via ineffective-assistance argument | Held: MCR 6.310(D) bars direct review of plea accuracy, but ineffective-assistance claim can be considered (Broyles) — court addressed merits in that context |
| Burden of proof re: personal-use exception | State: personal-use is an affirmative defense; prosecution need not negate exception; burden on defendant | Baham: argued court should have excluded personal-use at plea | Held: Exception is affirmative defense (MCL 333.7531(1)); defendant bore burden to raise/present evidence; plea waived opportunity to assert defense |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Pearson, 157 Mich. App. 68 (1987) (persuasive holding that personal-use exception applies to preparation/compounding of an existing controlled substance, not creation)
- People v. Miller, 498 Mich. 13 (2015) (articulates abstract-elements test for whether two offenses are the same for multiple-punishments double-jeopardy analysis)
- People v. Broyles, 498 Mich. 927 (2015) (remedy where ineffective assistance deprived defendant of opportunity to timely file plea-withdrawal motion)
- People v. Ream, 481 Mich. 223 (2008) (use of statutory elements, not particular facts, to determine whether offenses are the same for double-jeopardy purposes)