People of Michigan v. Shanisha Molden
332234
| Mich. Ct. App. | Aug 22, 2017Background
- Defendant Shanisha Molden was convicted after a bench trial of first-degree home invasion, malicious destruction of a building ($1,000–$20,000), malicious destruction of personal property ($200–$1,000), and aggravated domestic violence. Sentence: 30 months to 20 years for home invasion; one year probation on other counts.
- Victim Carl Owens testified defendant entered his home without permission (he did not give her the key that night and did not invite her), awoke to being punched in the face, and was later injured in the groin area.
- Defendant and a friend (Audree Valentine) testified defendant had the key and was invited that night; the trial court found their testimony not credible.
- The court found defendant committed a battery/assault (punch to the face) and then additional assaultive conduct; it concluded she entered without permission or violated any restriction on key use.
- Defendant appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence that she entered without permission and that she acted in self-defense for the assault element of home invasion, and (2) that her 30-month sentence was disproportionate. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: entry without permission for first-degree home invasion | Owens testified she did not have permission and stole/did not get the key | Molden said Owens gave her the key and invited her that night | Conviction affirmed; credibility determinations favored prosecution, evidence supported no permission or restricted key use (Wilder, Rider principles) |
| Sufficiency: assault element of home invasion | Owens testified defendant punched him in the face and injured him further | Molden claimed she only nudged/pushed and acted in self-defense for later conduct | Conviction affirmed; punch constitutes battery/assault; later conduct not exculpated by self-defense because initial assault had already occurred |
| Sentencing: proportionality of 30-month minimum | Prosecution: within guidelines and appropriate given facts | Molden: sentence disproportionate given employment, motherhood, limited record | Affirmed; sentence within 30–50 month guidelines range, no scoring error or reliance on inaccurate info, presumptively proportionate |
| Applicability of Lockridge reasonableness review | N/A | Molden implied sentence review required | Lockridge review for departures not triggered because sentence within guidelines; MCL 769.34(10) governs affirmance |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wilder, 485 Mich 35 (clarifies elements of first-degree home invasion)
- People v. Rider, 411 Mich 496 (use of entrusted key implicates "breaking" only if access restrictions violated)
- People v. Reese, 491 Mich 127 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- People v. Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (sentencing reasonableness review for departures from guidelines)
- People v. Milbourn, 435 Mich 630 (proportionality principle in Michigan sentencing)
- People v. Schrauben, 314 Mich App 181 (application of MCL 769.34(10) when sentence within guidelines)