People of Michigan v. Tiwaun Maurice Calloway
153751
| Mich. | May 19, 2017Background
- Tiwaun Calloway was convicted of second-degree murder on an aiding-and-abetting theory after his friend shot and killed a man; Calloway drove the shooter away.
- At sentencing the trial court assessed 15 points for Offense Variable 5 (OV 5) — "serious psychological injury requiring professional treatment" to a victim’s family member — increasing Calloway’s recommended range.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but vacated the OV 5 score, holding there was no evidence family members intended to seek professional treatment.
- The prosecution sought leave in the Michigan Supreme Court to challenge the Court of Appeals’ OV 5 ruling; Calloway sought leave to challenge his conviction (denied).
- The Michigan Supreme Court granted review in lieu of leave, held that OV 5 may be scored without proof that treatment was sought or currently intended, and reversed the Court of Appeals’ reduction of OV 5.
- The case was remanded under People v Lockridge for resentencing proceedings because the Court of Appeals found the trial court engaged in judicial fact-finding on other offense variables.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 15 points may be scored for OV 5 absent proof the victim’s family sought or intends to seek professional treatment | The prosecution argued MCL 777.35 allows 15 points when a serious psychological injury may require professional treatment even if treatment hasn’t been sought or intended | Calloway argued (and the Court of Appeals agreed) that OV 5 requires evidence that a family member sought, received, or at least intended to seek professional treatment | The Court held OV 5 may be scored when a serious psychological injury may require future professional treatment; proof of seeking or intending treatment is not required |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015) (requires remand when trial court engaged in judicial fact‑finding that affected sentencing guidelines range)
- Madugula v Taub, 496 Mich 685 (2014) (statutory interpretation: give effect to Legislature’s intent and plain language)
- DeFrain v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 491 Mich 359 (2012) (specific statutory provisions control over general ones)
- People v Portellos, 298 Mich App 431 (2012) (Court of Appeals decision holding OV5 not scored where no evidence family intended to seek treatment; partially overruled here)