People of Michigan v. Tiwaun Maurice Calloway
500 Mich 180
| Mich. | 2017Background
- Tiwaun Calloway was convicted of second-degree murder on an aiding-and-abetting theory after a co-defendant shot and killed a man; Calloway drove the shooter away. He was sentenced to 20–50 years.
- At sentencing the trial court assessed 15 points for Offense Variable 5 (OV 5) — "psychological injury to a member of a victim’s family" — based on statements from the victim’s stepfather describing severe, long-lasting trauma to the family.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but vacated the OV 5 score, reasoning there was no evidence the victim’s family sought, received, or intended to seek professional treatment, so OV 5 should be scored 0.
- The prosecution sought leave to appeal the Court of Appeals’ OV 5 ruling; Calloway separately sought leave to challenge his conviction (denied).
- The Michigan Supreme Court granted review (in lieu of leave), held OV 5 may be scored at 15 points even if treatment has not been sought or the family has no present intent to seek treatment, and reversed the Court of Appeals as to OV 5.
- The Supreme Court remanded for a Lockridge analysis because the Court of Appeals had concluded the trial court engaged in judicial fact-finding when scoring two offense variables.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OV 5 may be scored 15 points absent proof that family sought or intends to seek professional treatment | Prosecution: OV 5 permits 15 points where a serious psychological injury "may require" professional treatment and lack of treatment sought is not conclusive | Calloway: OV 5 requires evidence that a family member sought, received, or at least intends to seek professional treatment | Held: 15 points may be assessed when a serious psychological injury may require professional treatment in the future; proof of present intent to seek treatment is not required |
| What constitutes a "serious psychological injury" for OV 5 | Prosecution: consider severity, manifestations before sentencing, and likely future effects | Calloway: challenged sufficiency of evidence of injury and need for treatment | Held: "Serious" means having important or dangerous possible consequences; court may consider manifestations and future likelihood; here evidence sufficed |
| Whether precedent requiring evidence of intent to seek treatment controls (People v Portellos) | Prosecution: Portellos was wrongly interpreted to require present intent; MCL 777.35(2) clarifies treatment not being sought is not conclusive | Calloway: relied on Portellos and Court of Appeals decision to argue OV 5 was mis-scored | Held: Overruled Portellos to the extent it required present intent; Portellos not controlling on that point |
| Whether remand is required under People v Lockridge | Prosecution: remand for a Lockridge analysis follows Court of Appeals’ conclusion about judicial fact-finding | Calloway: no argument against remand noted | Held: Remand required for the Lockridge sentencing-procedure analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (remand for consideration whether judicial fact-finding at sentencing affected the sentence)
- Madugula v Taub, 496 Mich 685 (statutory interpretation principles; give effect to plain language)
- DeFrain v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 491 Mich 359 (specific statutory provision controls over general)
- People v Portellos, 298 Mich App 431 (Court of Appeals decision; interpreted as requiring evidence of intent to seek treatment — overruled to that extent)
- People v Schrauben, 314 Mich App 181 (Court of Appeals construing similar OV language for psychological injury)