People of Michigan v. Thomas Andrew Pernell, 365563

Defendant Thomas Pernell was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder and felony-firearm; sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 50–90 years (murder) consecutive to 2 years (felony-firearm).
The trial court scored 10 points for Offense Variable (OV) 19 (interference with administration of justice) based on defendant giving a misleading statement to a detective, directing the detective to the house, fleeing the scene, and leaving with the murder weapon.
On direct appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed both the convictions and the OV 19 score, concluding Pernell’s actions actively redirected the investigation and attempted to prevent arrest.
Pernell sought leave in the Michigan Supreme Court; the Supreme Court vacated Part III (OV 19) and remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of People v Deweerd.
On remand the Court of Appeals reviewed OV 19 under the statutory standard and Deweerd’s clarification that mere denials of culpability do not suffice; the panel again concluded the trial court properly assessed 10 points.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether OV 19 was properly scored 10 points for interference with the administration of justice	Pernell’s misleading statement to police, directing them to the house, fleeing the scene, and leaving with the weapon amounted to active interference that redirected the investigation and concealed evidence	Defendant argued his statements were merely denials or neutral statements and thus insufficient under Deweerd to constitute interference	Court held the conduct was more than a denial: it actively redirected the investigation and concealed evidence, so 10 points for OV 19 was proper
Whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to OV 19 scoring	Prosecutor: scoring was legally supportable, so no meritorious basis for counsel to object	Pernell argued counsel should have objected to OV 19 after Deweerd; failure to object was ineffective assistance	Court held counsel’s failure to object was reasonable because OV 19 scoring was not clearly erroneous; ineffective-assistance claim failed

People v Deweerd, 511 Mich 979 (2023) (denials of culpability alone do not satisfy OV 19; interference requires "something more" such as actively redirecting an investigation or concealing evidence)
People v Barbee, 470 Mich 283 (2004) (OV 19 broadly interpreted; acts that interfere with officers or investigations may support scoring)
People v Hardy, 494 Mich 430 (2013) (standard of review: trial court factual findings for OV scoring reviewed for clear error; legal application reviewed de novo)
People v Sours, 315 Mich App 346 (2016) (OV 19 generally scored for conduct aiming to avoid being caught or held accountable)
People v Smith, 488 Mich 193 (2011) (courts may consider post-offense conduct in scoring OV 19)
People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192 (2010) (conduct that diverts suspicion onto others can support OV 19 scoring)
People v Hershey, 303 Mich App 330 (2014) (OV 19 requires more than merely opposing an investigation; must meaningfully hamper or obstruct)