People of Michigan v. Ryan Robert Camargo
332438
| Mich. Ct. App. | Aug 3, 2017Background
- On April 27, 2015, defendant Ryan Camargo and his girlfriend (KH) were in a hotel room drinking, playing video games, and watching movies; an altercation occurred after KH woke from a nightmare.
- KH's preliminary-examination testimony described a violent attack: defendant ripped a TV from the wall, struck KH in the head and face, choked her three times (causing blackout and urination), bit her, and inflicted a facial laceration requiring stitches; photos corroborated injuries.
- KH initially fled the hotel barefoot and sought help from a passing motorist who took her to the hospital. Defendant later pleaded nolo contendere, then withdrew the plea after contact with KH; at trial KH recanted her preliminary-exam account, claiming injuries resulted from rough sexual play.
- The trial court admitted KH’s preliminary-examination testimony under MRE 804 (unavailability) over defense objection; the jury heard both versions and convicted defendant of domestic violence (MCL 750.813) and assault by strangulation (MCL 750.84).
- On appeal, defendant challenged sufficiency of the strangulation evidence and raised sentencing claims: (1) Lockridge error (judge-found facts used to score guidelines) and (2) improper scoring of Offense Variable (OV) 8 (15 points).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for assault by strangulation | KH’s preliminary-exam testimony established strangulation and was admissible; viewed in prosecution’s favor it supports conviction | KH’s preliminary testimony was incredible and contradicted her trial recantation, so evidence was insufficient | Conviction affirmed; jury credited preliminary-exam testimony and that evidence was adequate to prove strangulation beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Adherence to Lockridge re: sentencing | Sentencing court acknowledged guidelines are advisory and cited individualized sentencing policy | Argues judge-found facts drove the sentence and remand is required under Lockridge | No remand; court expressly treated guidelines as advisory, satisfying Lockridge |
| OV 8 scoring (15 points) — asportation or captivity | OV 8 justified because KH was held captive beyond time needed to commit the offense (threats, suicide attempt by defendant) | Contends 15 points unsupported because no asportation and no extended captivity beyond necessary time | OV 8 properly scored at 15 points; evidence showed KH was forced to remain in room beyond time needed to commit offense |
| Admission of preliminary-exam testimony (MRE 804) | Trial court previously determined KH was unavailable and admitted her prior testimony | Defense objected at trial to its admission and relied on cross-examination at trial | Admission not challenged on appeal and admission supported jury’s verdict; court deferred to jury’s credibility determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Harverson, 291 Mich. App. 171 (2010) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- People v Phelps, 288 Mich. App. 123 (2010) (evidence viewed in light most favorable to the prosecution)
- People v Hardy, 494 Mich. 430 (2013) (preponderance standard for OV scoring review)
- People v Lemmon, 456 Mich. 625 (1998) (jury’s province to assess witness credibility)
- People v Kanaan, 278 Mich. App. 594 (2008) (appellate deference to jury credibility determinations)
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358 (2015) (guidelines advisory; remand only if court failed to acknowledge advisory nature)
- United States v Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005) (Crosby remand framework cited in Lockridge discussion)