People of Michigan v. Timothy Ray Palacios II
331909
Mich. Ct. App.May 11, 2017Background
- Defendant (passenger) was in a car with open alcohol containers; Deputy Frolenko investigated and requested identification.
- Defendant twice refused to provide ID and refused three orders to exit the vehicle after Frolenko observed an open beer can near defendant’s feet.
- Frolenko reached into the backseat to restrain defendant after observing what he thought might be a weapon; a scuffle ensued, Frolenko drew his firearm, and defendant was arrested.
- Jury convicted defendant of resisting and obstructing a police officer (MCL 750.81d(1)); acquitted on open container and the greater resisting/obstructing causing injury charge.
- Defendant sentenced as a fourth habitual offender to 24–180 months. He appealed, challenging sufficiency of the evidence, jury instructions/effective assistance, OV 3 scoring, and restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for resisting/obstructing | Frolenko had reasonable suspicion to investigate open containers; defendant knowingly failed to comply with lawful commands and physically resisted—evidence supports conviction | Defendant says he was cooperative and did not resist; officer’s version is inaccurate | Affirmed: evidence (including refusals to ID/exit and scuffle) sufficient when viewed for prosecutor; officer’s actions were lawful under circumstances |
| Jury instructions (omission of lawfulness element) | Omission was waived because defense expressly approved instructions; jury was told obstruction requires failure to comply with a lawful command | Trial court omitted explicit element that officers’ actions be lawful; counsel ineffective for not objecting | Affirmed: waiver by express assent; any error was not outcome-determinative; ineffective-assistance claim failed for lack of prejudice |
| Right to present defense (resist excessive force) | prosecution: defendant could present evidence and jury heard both accounts; no requested instruction | defendant: absence of instruction deprived him of defense to resist unlawful force | Affirmed: defendant did not request such instruction at trial; evidence showed obstruction occurred before any alleged excessive force; no prejudice |
| Sentencing (OV 3 scoring) | Frolenko suffered physical injury treated with ER care; OV3 properly scored at 10 | Defendant argues no bodily injury or insufficient proof and jury acquitted of causing injury | Affirmed: preponderance supported bodily injury requiring treatment; 10 points proper |
| Restitution | Restitution for $342.99 (worker’s comp payment) compensates victim/insurer for ER costs caused by defendant’s conduct | Defendant contends insurer’s payment not direct result or he did not cause injury | Affirmed: restitution supported by preponderance; insurer is an eligible victim under CVRA |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Moreno, 491 Mich 38 (reinstating common-law right to resist unlawful arrest; lawfulness of officer’s actions is an element)
- People v. Quinn, 305 Mich App 484 (elements of MCL 750.81d)
- People v. Chapo, 283 Mich App 360 (officer may order occupants out of vehicle during stop)
- Minnesota v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (officer may order driver out of vehicle during traffic stop)
- People v. Kowalski, 489 Mich 488 (waiver by express assent to jury instructions)
- People v. McKinney, 258 Mich App 157 (reversal for instruction error requires outcome-determinative showing)
- People v. Cathey, 261 Mich App 506 (definition of bodily injury for OV scoring)
- People v. Garrison, 495 Mich 362 (CVRA and mandatory restitution to victims or compensating entities)