People of Michigan v. Toney C Lindsey
331833
| Mich. Ct. App. | Aug 8, 2017Background
- In 2008 Lindsey was convicted of assault with intent to do great bodily harm and two counts of first-degree CSC and sentenced as a fourth habitual offender to concurrent terms (minimum 300 months for CSC).
- On initial appeal this Court affirmed convictions but remanded for resentencing because the trial court used the wrong guidelines cell (F-V instead of F-IV), even though the 300-month minimum fell within the correct range.
- A resentencing hearing occurred in January 2016; the trial court corrected the guidelines range and reimposed the same sentences and the same $500 in court costs, though the court could not recall the original cost explanation.
- Lindsey sought an adjournment to consult newly appointed counsel; the trial court denied the request and proceeded after allowing counsel and defendant to review the PSIR and guidelines.
- Lindsey challenged denial of adjournment, applicability of Lockridge, and the imposition of $500 in court costs under the post-Cunningham statutory framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of adjournment to consult new counsel | State: denial was within court's discretion; no prejudice shown | Lindsey: needed time to meet new counsel and prepare for resentencing | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; defendant had opportunity to review PSIR/guidelines and showed no prejudice |
| Applicability of Lockridge to resentencing | State: Lockridge inapplicable where sentence is within guidelines and no departure occurred | Lindsey: Lockridge should apply to make guidelines advisory and affect resentencing | Court held Lockridge inapplicable because Lindsey’s minimum (300 months) was within correct advisory range and no scoring error or inaccurate information was shown |
| Imposition of $500 court costs post-Cunningham and amended MCL 769.1k | State: costs proper as previously imposed | Lindsey: costs must be supported by factual basis and be reasonably related to actual trial-court costs per Konopka and amended statute | Court remanded: trial court must establish factual basis and determine whether $500 is reasonably related to actual costs per Konopka (On Remand) and MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii) |
| Plain-error review of forfeited costs claim | State: issue forfeited, review only for plain error | Lindsey: plain error affected substantial rights | Court applied plain-error standard but found remand required because record lacked factual basis for costs, so relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Francisco, 474 Mich 82 (court must resentenced if wrong guidelines range used)
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (sentencing guidelines are advisory after Sixth Amendment analysis)
- People v Konopka (On Remand), 309 Mich App 345 (trial court must establish factual basis for court costs and relation to actual costs)
- People v Cunningham, 496 Mich 145 (courts may impose only costs separately authorized by statute)
- People v Schrauben, 314 Mich App 181 (when court does not depart from guidelines, sentence affirmed absent scoring error or inaccurate information)