People of Michigan v. Robert Daniel Hunt
352385
Mich. Ct. App.Apr 8, 2021Background
- Defendant Robert Daniel Hunt pleaded guilty to second-degree home invasion for entering a dwelling without permission intending to commit larceny.
- Entry occurred through an unlocked sliding door while occupants (three residents) were asleep; defendant took items from living room/kitchen and left without detection.
- Defendant was unarmed; he did not encounter, threaten, or physically contact the residents, who discovered the theft later.
- The trial court scored 10 points for OV 9 (2–9 victims placed in danger of physical injury or death).
- Judge Letica (dissent) argues the OV 9 score was erroneous because there is no record evidence the occupants were actually placed in danger as required by the statute, and would remand for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OV 9 may be scored 10 points when occupants were asleep and never encountered | OV 9 can be scored based on the number of persons whose safety was placed at risk by the invasion | Occupants were not actually placed in danger; mere possibility or potential is insufficient | Dissent: OV 9 improperly scored; would remand for resentencing |
| Meaning of statutory phrase "were placed in danger" in MCL 777.39(1)(c) | "Placed in danger" can encompass situations of close proximity or substantial risk created by defendant's conduct | The passive past-tense phrase requires actual placing in danger—an action completed, not mere potential | Dissent: interprets phrase as requiring actual placement in danger; potential risk inadequate |
| Proper basis for scoring OV 9 (scope of conduct considered) | OV 9 may consider conduct reasonably related to the offense | OV 9 must be scored solely on defendant’s conduct during the sentencing offense | Dissent: applies precedent limiting OV9 to defendant’s conduct during the offense |
| Remedy if OV 9 was improperly scored | Trial court’s scoring was proper; no remand | Erroneous scoring altered guidelines range and warrants resentencing | Dissent: error altered guidelines; remand for resentencing required |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Stone, 463 Mich. 558 (2011) (plain statutory language controls; no further construction if unambiguous)
- People v Sargent, 481 Mich. 346 (2008) (OV scoring limited to conduct that relates to the offense being scored)
- People v McGraw, 484 Mich. 120 (2009) (OV 9 must be scored solely on defendant’s conduct during the breaking and entering)
- People v Gratsch, 299 Mich. App. 604 (2013) (a person may count as an OV9 victim based on close proximity to a physically threatening situation)
- People v Walden, 319 Mich. App. 344 (2017) (conduct such as brandishing or swinging a weapon near others can justify OV9 victim counts)
- People v Francisco, 474 Mich. 82 (2006) (sentencing court errors that alter guideline range require remand for resentencing)