People of Michigan v. Victor Lee Walker
330441
Mich. Ct. App.Sep 12, 2017Background
- In 2000 Victor Lee Walker was convicted by jury of kidnapping, felonious assault, and felony-firearm; sentenced as a habitual second offender to concurrent terms (18–40 years kidnapping; 2–6 years assault) consecutive to two years for felony-firearm.
- The victim, Kenyon Barkley, testified he was abducted at gunpoint, brutalized, held captive in a basement for three days, and escaped; the brothers’ convictions were previously affirmed on direct appeal (co-defendants’ appeals).
- Walker’s first appeal was not timely filed due to appellate counsel’s failure; the trial court later reissued the judgment of sentence under MCR 6.428 to restart appellate time.
- Years later Barkley executed an affidavit recanting portions of his trial testimony, claiming he fabricated the kidnapping to retaliate after a fight with one of the Walkers and that a police officer threatened him about a warrant to force court attendance.
- Walker filed seven postconviction motions (new trial, resentencing, evidentiary/Ginther hearing, due process dismissal, bond pending appeal, etc.); the trial court denied them without fully articulating reasons for refusing an evidentiary hearing on the recantation issue.
- The Court of Appeals remanded for the trial court to (1) articulate its reasons for denying an evidentiary hearing on newly discovered/recantation evidence and (2) resentence because OV 8 was mis-scored given the sentencing offense was kidnapping.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on Barkley’s recantation / new-trial motion | Prosecution implicitly: no new-trial warranted given record and recantation’s suspect nature | Walker: Barkley’s affidavit is newly discovered evidence and warrants an evidentiary hearing and new trial | Remanded: trial court failed to articulate reasons for denying an evidentiary hearing; remand for articulation (and possible hearing) required |
| Whether prosecutorial misconduct deprived Walker of a fair trial | Prosecution: cross and redirect were appropriate, any error cured by objection/admonition/instructions | Walker: prosecutor impeached complainant, elicited propensity-type testimony, and shifted burden in rebuttal | No reversal: most complained-of instances not prosecutorial error; one improper remark cured by objection, admonition, and jury instructions |
| Whether Walker received ineffective assistance of counsel (pre- and at-trial) | Walker: counsel failed to investigate/call alibi and other witnesses (sister, neighbor, man on porch) | Prosecution: counsel’s strategy to impeach Barkley and to use absence of late witnesses was reasonable trial strategy | Denied: record shows strategy and no clear deficiency on the record; no Ginther remand warranted |
| Whether sentencing scoring (OV 8 and Lockridge claim) required resentencing | Walker: OV 8 (asportation/captivity) was mis-scored; Lockridge constitutional challenge to guidelines | State: original scoring stood; Lockridge not raised at 2000 sentencing but later motion preserved issues | Remanded for resentencing: OV 8 was improperly scored (15 points) despite convicted offense being kidnapping; resentencing ordered; Lockridge challenge rendered moot by remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Cress, 468 Mich. 678 (2003) (elements for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358 (2015) (advisory guidelines framework post-Lockridge)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v Bahoda, 448 Mich. 261 (1995) (prosecutor argument standards and harmless-error principles)
- People v Hardy, 494 Mich. 430 (2013) (standards for review of guidelines scoring and factual findings)
- People v Francisco, 474 Mich. 82 (2006) (review standards for interpretation/application of sentencing guidelines)