People of Michigan v. Tod Kevin Houthoofd, 332323

Background

Tod Kevin Houthoofd was convicted (jury) of solicitation to commit murder, witness intimidation, and obtaining property by false pretenses; the solicitation count received an upward departure sentence originally (40–60 years).
The case has extensive procedural history with multiple appeals and resentencings; the Court of Appeals previously held one resentencing void and ordered another resentencing before the Saginaw trial court.
After the Michigan Supreme Court decided People v. Lockridge (making the statutory sentencing guidelines advisory), the trial court resentenced Houthoofd in March 2016 to 360–600 months (30–50 years), treating the guidelines as advisory and articulating reasons for departure under a reasonableness standard.
On that resentencing the trial court (and parties) declined to score offense variables (OVs) under the mistaken belief Lockridge barred judicial fact‑finding for OV scoring; as a result the record reflected an OV total of zero and a PRV of 35, yielding an advisory range the court nevertheless departed from.
Houthoofd appealed, arguing (among other things) Lockridge should not apply retroactively (ex post facto/due process), judicial fact‑finding to score OVs violated the Sixth Amendment, the sentence was unreasonable, and the sentencing judge was biased.
The Court of Appeals held Lockridge applied to cases pending on direct review, rejected the ex post facto and jury‑factfinding arguments, found no judicial bias, but vacated the sentence and remanded because the trial court failed to score OVs (as Lockridge requires) and thus the record did not permit appellate review of the reasonableness of the departure.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Retroactivity of Lockridge	Lockridge applies to cases pending on direct review; remedy follows Booker and is retroactive.	Lockridge is detrimental and cannot be retroactively applied (ex post facto/due process).	Lockridge applies retroactively to cases pending on direct review; ex post facto/due process argument rejected.
Judicial fact‑finding for OV scoring	Courts may engage in judicial fact‑finding and must score OVs (Lockridge remedy).	Any facts supporting a departure (except admissions/prior convictions) must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.	Lockridge does not prohibit judicial fact‑finding; Alleyne does not bar judge‑found facts for discretionary departures; defendant's Sixth Amendment argument rejected.
Reasonableness review and failure to score OVs	Sentencing courts must score OVs, consult advisory range, and justify departures to facilitate appellate proportionality review.	Trial court’s failure to score OVs (belief it could not) and imposition of large upward departure was unreasonable and unreviewable.	Vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing with instruction to score OVs per Lockridge so appellate review of proportionality can occur.
Judicial bias / disqualification	N/A (prosecution argued no disqualification needed).	Judge Jackson should be disqualified for prior civil involvement and bias at resentencing.	Law‑of‑the‑case and presumption of impartiality bar disqualification; no reversible bias shown.

Key Cases Cited

People v. Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015) (held Michigan sentencing guidelines advisory and mandated reasonableness review; OVs to be scored and may be based on judge‑found facts)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (remedial holding rendering federal guidelines advisory under Sixth Amendment principles)
People v. Milbourn, 435 Mich 630 (1990) (principle‑of‑proportionality standard for sentencing)
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (clarified when fact‑finding elevates statutory minimums requiring jury proof; does not abolish judge‑found facts for discretionary sentencing)
People v. Richards, 315 Mich App 564 (2016) (applied Lockridge retroactively to cases pending on direct review)
People v. Biddles, 316 Mich App 148 (2016) (recognized Lockridge permits judge‑found facts for OV scoring; OVs must be scored)
United States v. Barton, 455 F.3d 649 (6th Cir. 2006) (Booker remedy applied retroactively; cited on retroactivity and ex post facto concerns)