People of Michigan v. Steven Maurice Moten
333156
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 19, 2017Background
- On Nov. 14, 2015, defendant participated in a high-speed drag race (~100+ mph) that led to a collision, a five-car crash, and the death of a passenger in another vehicle.
- A jury acquitted defendant of second-degree murder but convicted him of reckless driving causing death (MCL 257.626(4)).
- At sentencing the court sentenced defendant to 3–15 years (minimum 36 months), within the applicable guidelines range (19–38 months).
- Defendant sought consideration under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act (HYTA); the court denied it and commented on defendant's remorse, driving history, and rehabilitative potential.
- Defendant appealed, arguing the sentence was improperly influenced by his refusal to admit guilt/lack of remorse, implicating Fifth Amendment and due-process protections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing was impermissibly based on defendant's refusal to admit guilt | Court may consider lack of remorse only insofar as it bears on rehabilitation; factors must be applied | Refusal to admit guilt and court's comments show sentence punished silence, violating Fifth Amendment/due process | No: court did not improperly sentence for refusal to admit guilt; comments concerned remorse and rehabilitation, not punitive bargain for admission |
| Whether the judge impermissibly attempted to force an admission | Judge merely evaluated remorse and responsibility | Judge pressured defendant to admit guilt and suggested lighter sentence if he did | No: record shows no coercive attempt to extract admission; judge commented on sincerity and responsibility |
| Whether appearance that an admission would yield a lesser sentence tainted sentencing | Plaintiff argues no indication sentence depended on admission; other factors drove sentence | Defendant contends appearance of leniency tied to admission influenced outcome | No: sentencing focused on recklessness, driving record, and risk to public; no showing sentence would have been lesser if he admitted guilt |
| Whether lack of remorse may justify an upward sentence within guidelines | Plaintiff: lack of remorse relevant to rehabilitation and may justify higher within range | Defendant: using silence/lack of admission to increase sentence violates rights | Held: court properly weighed lack of remorse as part of rehabilitation analysis and could impose an upper-range sentence within guidelines |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Conley, 270 Mich. App. 301 (2006) (court cannot impose sentence based on refusal to admit guilt or offer lesser sentence for admission)
- People v. Wesley, 428 Mich. 708 (1987) (brief reference to refusal to admit guilt allowed when addressing remorse and rehabilitation)
- People v. Payne, 285 Mich. App. 181 (2009) (three-factor test to assess improper consideration of refusal to admit guilt)
- People v. Daniel, 462 Mich. 1 (2000) (rehabilitation is a necessary sentencing consideration)
- People v. Houston, 448 Mich. 312 (1995) (lack of remorse may justify higher sentence as it pertains to rehabilitation)
- People v. Lee, 243 Mich. App. 163 (2000) (presumption of proportionality for guideline-range sentences absent unusual circumstances)
- People v. Dash, 216 Mich. App. 412 (1996) (distinguishing plea admission from trial conviction context)
- People v. Hanks, 276 Mich. App. 91 (2007) (need to preserve due process argument at trial to raise on appeal)
- People v. Schumacher, 276 Mich. App. 165 (2007) (de novo review of preserved constitutional claims)
- People v. Clark, 315 Mich. App. 219 (2016) (requirements to preserve sentencing issues for appellate review)
- People v. McNally, 470 Mich. 1 (2004) (plain-error review for unpreserved sentencing issues)