People of Michigan v. Russell Humes
330780
Mich. Ct. App.Apr 20, 2017Background
- Defendant Russell Humes drifted across lanes while driving on 19 Mile Road and collided head‑on with an oncoming vehicle; the other driver died.
- At the hospital, a serum blood test for medical purposes showed a blood‑alcohol level of .06; defendant had told staff he took Lyrica and Prozac and denied drinking.
- Defendant pleaded guilty to violating licensing restrictions; a jury convicted him of reckless driving causing death and acquitted him of OWI causing death.
- At sentencing the trial court assessed OV 3 (50 points) and OV 18 (5 points) based on evidence of visible impairment and the hospital blood test.
- On appeal defendant argued trial counsel was ineffective for (1) stipulating to the hospital serum blood test rather than challenging its reliability/chain of custody, and (2) failing to object to scoring OV 3 and OV 18.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding defendant failed to establish a factual predicate for an ineffective‑assistance claim and that the OV scores were supported by a preponderance of the record evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did counsel err by stipulating to hospital serum blood test results? | Prosecution: hospital test admissible under statute and record shows no deviation or chain‑of‑custody defect. | Humes: hospital serum testing is less reliable than state whole‑blood testing and chain of custody/accuracy should have been challenged. | Counsel’s stipulation was reasonable; defendant offered no record evidence of unreliability or chain‑of‑custody flaw, so he failed to show prejudice. |
| Did counsel err by not objecting to OV 3 scoring (physical injury/death)? | Prosecution: OV 3 properly scored based on death and evidence of visible impairment from driving conduct and BAC evidence. | Humes: OV 3 requires proof of influence/visible impairment specific to the sentencing offense; he was acquitted of OWI causing death. | OV 3 was properly scored by preponderance: driving behavior and BAC supported visible impairment during the sentencing offense; objection would have been futile. |
| Did counsel err by not objecting to OV 18 scoring (operator’s ability)? | Prosecution: OV 18 may consider all record evidence; defendant’s erratic driving and BAC support 5 points. | Humes: No evidence he was visibly impaired during the sentencing offense; impairment relates only to OWI charge. | OV 18 scoring was supported by record; visible impairment was evidenced by conduct at time of collision, so counsel was not ineffective. |
| Is defendant entitled to a Ginther hearing or new trial to develop ineffective‑assistance claims? | Prosecution: claims are not preserved and lack record support; remand unnecessary. | Humes: sought remand for evidentiary hearing to support his allegations. | Court denied remand; because defendant failed to establish factual predicate on record, claim review limited and failed. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Petri, 279 Mich. App. 407 (appellate standard for preserving ineffective‑assistance claims) (discusses preservation).
- People v. Lockett, 295 Mich. App. 165 (ineffective‑assistance two‑prong test and presumption of effective counsel).
- People v. Carbin, 463 Mich. 590 (defendant bears burden to establish factual predicate for ineffective‑assistance claim).
- People v. Fosnaugh, 248 Mich. App. 444 (admissibility of medical chemical tests requires relevance and reliability; suppression only for rule deviations).
- People v. Osantowski, 481 Mich. 103 (sentencing variables determined by preponderance of record evidence).
- People v. McGraw, 484 Mich. 120 (court may consider all record evidence when scoring guidelines).