People of Michigan v. Robert Earl White
327419
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 29, 2016Background
- In April 2015 defendants Mary Elaine White (MEW) and her brother Robert Earl White (REW) were tried by jury for crimes stemming from REW shooting MEW’s boyfriend through a locked door after an earlier altercation in which the boyfriend struck MEW.
- REW was charged and convicted of assault with intent to commit murder (AWIM), felony-firearm, and felon in possession of a firearm; sentenced as a second habitual offender to concurrent long terms for AWIM and felon-in-possession, consecutive to a two-year felony-firearm term.
- MEW was charged and convicted of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder (AWIGBH) and second-offense felony-firearm under an aiding-and-abetting theory; sentenced to 23 months–10 years for AWIGBH consecutive to five years for felony-firearm.
- Key trial evidence: MEW left after being struck, returned within minutes; REW arrived with a gun; both defendants shouted at the door, MEW allegedly urged REW to “shoot” or “kill” the boyfriend, and REW fired multiple shots through the door striking the boyfriend.
- MEW appealed arguing insufficient evidence for aiding-and-abetting felony-firearm, ineffective assistance for not objecting to the verdict form/instructions, and that her sentence requires a Lockridge/Crosby remand; REW appealed challenging identity and intent-to-kill sufficiency and sought Lockridge relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that MEW aided and abetted felony-firearm | Prosecution: MEW vocally encouraged REW to shoot/kill, which specifically aided use/possession of the gun | MEW: prosecution did not prove she specifically aided felony-firearm | Held: Evidence (eyewitness and victim testimony that MEW urged shooting) was sufficient under Moore to prove aiding and abetting felony-firearm |
| Ineffective assistance (MEW) for failing to object to verdict form/instructions | Prosecution: verdict form/instructions allowed general not-guilty verdict; counsel’s choices were reasonable strategy | MEW: verdict form confused jury, possibly compelled inconsistent verdicts; counsel should have objected | Held: No deficient performance or prejudice shown; verdict form not so defective to require reversal |
| Lockridge/Crosby relief for MEW’s sentence | State: sentencing guidelines advisory after Lockridge; Crosby remand required if judicially-found facts increased guideline floor and would change range | MEW: OV scoring used judicially-found facts (OV-3 25 points) increasing minimum; she was entitled to Crosby remand | Held: Remand required for Crosby proceeding because OV-3 points were based on judicial factfinding and would lower guideline minimum if removed; also correct clerical errors in judgment of sentence |
| Sufficiency of evidence identifying REW and proving intent to kill | Prosecution: victim and other witnesses identified REW; firing multiple shots into occupied home supports intent to kill | REW: identification unreliable; no proof he knew victim was behind door; no direct motive | Held: Identification and intent-to-kill sufficiently supported by witness testimony, vehicle matches, motive (defense of MEW) and conduct (multiple shots and flight) |
| Lockridge/Crosby relief for REW | Prosecution/trial court: court held post-Lockridge that sentence would not have changed; court effectively performed Crosby inquiry | REW: requested resentencing under Lockridge | Held: No Crosby remand necessary because trial court conducted the required inquiry and stated sentence would be same; convictions and sentences affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. People, 470 Mich 56 (aiding/abetting felony-firearm requires proof defendant aided, counseled, procured, or encouraged the principal to carry/use the firearm)
- Lockridge v. United States, 498 Mich 358 (Michigan sentencing guidelines must be advisory; Crosby remand procedure described)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668 (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Carines v. People, 460 Mich 750 (circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences can constitute satisfactory proof)
- United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (procedures for remand when discretionary sentencing is required — source of “Crosby remand”)
- Carbin v. People, 463 Mich 590 (standards for evaluating ineffective assistance claims)